Link: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/71
Origin: http://www.w3.org/mid/457164B8.2040203@gmx.de
Component: p4-conditional
People seem to be confused about the weak matching function; we should have examples to illustrate it.
+--------+--------+-------------------+-----------------+ | ETag 1 | ETag 2 | Strong Comparison | Weak Comparison | +--------+--------+-------------------+-----------------+ | W/"1" | W/"1" | no match | match | | | | | | | W/"1" | W/"2" | no match | no match | | | | | | | W/"1" | "1" | no match | match | | | | | | | "1" | "1" | match | match | +--------+--------+-------------------+-----------------+
Proposal:
1) Replace
" * The strong comparison function: in order to be considered equal, both validators MUST be identical in every way, and both MUST NOT be weak.
and
" * The strong comparison function: in order to be considered equal, both opaque-tags MUST be identical character-by-character, and both MUST NOT be weak.
This uses "opaque-token" instead of "validator" in the definition of the matching functions.
2) Add the table below.
Proposal:
1) Replace
" * The strong comparison function: in order to be considered equal, both validators MUST be identical in every way, and both MUST NOT be weak.
by
" * The strong comparison function: in order to be considered equal, both opaque-tags MUST be identical character-by-character, and both MUST NOT be weak.
This uses "opaque-token" instead of "validator" in the definition of the matching functions.
2) Add the table below.
proposed change for part 3.
Fixed in [298]:
Resolve #71: Clarify matching functions and add examples (closes #71).