W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

#495 WGLC: p4 editorial nits

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:14:52 +0200
Message-ID: <52330FCC.2010400@gmx.de>
To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-09-12 16:22, Ken Murchison wrote:
> Looking over the latest diffs I found a couple of typos:
>
> - Sec 3.4, 1st sent" "earlier or equal to" -> "earlier than or equal to"
>
> - Sec 3.4, para 5, 1st sent: "resource that resource" -> "resource that"
>
> - Sec 3.5, 1st para, 1st sent: "similar the If-Match and
> If-Unmodified-Since fields" -> "similar to the If-Match and
> If-Unmodified-Since header fields"

<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2379>

> Now on to my nits.  Sections 3.1 - 3.4 aren't entirely uniform after the
> current rewrite, especially Section 3.3:
>
> - Sec 3.2, 1st para, 1st sent, 2nd clause (to match Sec 3.1): "current
> representation" -> "current representation of the target resource"
>
> - Sec 3.4, para 6, 2nd sent (to explicitly state when condition is false
> like in Sec 3.1 and 3.2): "the selected representation has been modified
> since the time specified in this field" -> "the selected
> representation's last modification date is more recent than the date
> provided in the field-value"
>
> - Sec 3.3, last para, 1st sent: "during a past run" isn't very
> descriptive for 1st time readers ("run" of what?).  Suggest changing
> this to something like "in a prior response"

<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2387>.


> - Sec 3.3, 1st para not uniform with Sec 3.1, 3.2, 3.4.  Suggest
> changing it to something like the following:
>
>      The "If-Modified-Since" header field makes the GET or HEAD request
> method conditional on the selected representation's modification date being
>      more recent than the date provided in the field-value.  This
> accomplishes the same purpose as If-None-Match for cases where the user
> agent
>      does not have an entity-tag for the representation.

<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2387> (partly).


I haven't done anything about the remaining items yet:

> Sec 3.3 is missing paragraphs like the last 2 in Sec 3.1, 3.2, 3.4.
> Suggest appending the following to Sec 3.3:
>
>      An origin server that receives an If-Modified-Since header field
> MUST evaluate the condition prior to performing the method (Section 5).
> The
>      condition is false if the selected representation's last
> modification date is earlier than or equal to the date provided in the
> field-value.
>
>      An origin server MUST NOT perform the requested method if the
> condition evaluates to false: instead, the origin server MUST respond
> with the
>      304 (Not Modified) status code.
>
> - Sec 3.3, para 4, 2nd sent: Should this sentence regarding use of
> Last-Modified/Date also be included of para 4 in Sec 3.4?
>
> - Sec 3.3, last 2 para: Should Sec 3.4 have a similar discussion of how
> to generate the field-value?
>
> - Should the 1st sentences of Sec 3.3 and 3.4 use "recipient cache or
> origin server" like Sec 3.1 and 3.2?
>
>
> And finally, one question for my own understanding:
>
> - Why STRONG comparison for If-Match and WEAK for If-None-Match?  Is
> this due to selection vs validation?


Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 13:15:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:15 UTC