- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:28:03 +0200
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > Henrik Nordstrom wrote: >> Just to be clear, the text only clarifies what RFC2616 already said. >> There is no actual change in the comparision function, just different >> wording. >> >> Regarding wording I think the explicit mention of weakness should be >> added back to the weak comparison function as it adds clarity to those >> who don't quite remember that opaque-tag do not include the weakness >> indicator (this is defined many sections away). >> >> From: >> >> * The weak comparison function: in order to be considered equal, >> both opaque-tags MUST be identical character-by-character. >> >> To: >> >> * The weak comparison function: in order to be considered equal, >> both opaque-tags MUST be identical character-by-character, but >> either or both of them MAY be tagged as "weak" without affecting >> the result. > > Yes, I agree we went a bit too far when rephrasing it; I've committed > your proposed change as > <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/610>. > ... Hi, Henrik just pointed out that P4 still required strong matching in the definition of "If-Match", which we just fixed with: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/656> BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 11:28:45 UTC