- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:12:26 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 28/01/2013 9:02 p.m., Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2013-01-28 00:41, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> On 26/01/2013 4:05 a.m., Julian Reschke wrote: >>> On 2013-01-25 15:58, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>>> On Jan 25, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>>> >>>>> Looking at >>>>> <http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p4-conditional.html#precedence>: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "... Other conditional request header fields, defined by extensions >>>>> to HTTP, might place conditions on the state of the target resource >>>>> in general, such as how the If header field in WebDAV has been >>>>> defined to make a request conditional on the presence or absence of >>>>> a lock [RFC4918]." >>>>> >>>>> Actually, "If", as defined in RFC 2518 and 4918 can put conditions >>>>> on resources other than the target resource, see the "Tagged-list" >>>>> production in >>>>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4918.html#if.header.syntax>) -- >>>>> should we rephrase P4 accordingly? >>>> >>>> WTF? (and I just love the last paragraph in that section) >>> >>> That just states that RFC 2518 got the syntax wrong (relatively >>> politely). >> >> But the above wording implies that future ones MAY do so if they please >> as well. > > MAY do what? May define conditionals that refer to resources other than the URL one. Amos
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 11:13:07 UTC