Re: On the use of weak ETags for authoring

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