IETF Logo Mail Archive

#96 Conditional GET text

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 25 January 2013 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C45121F87B2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:51:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.800, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32+EfTqPe7LG for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:51:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E907621F87A6 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:51:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Tyij8-0000Wz-Fn for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:49:50 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:49:50 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Tyij8-0000Wz-Fn@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1Tyiiw-0000WG-Oc for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:49:38 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1Tyiiq-0002QN-34 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:49:38 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.2]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MVXbV-1UWPGw3QD9-00YvJk for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:49:05 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2013 12:49:05 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.102]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp002) with SMTP; 25 Jan 2013 13:49:05 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/4Rc5h1Nz4Zfi4qZnLIDZqxA0Fn4ExOZ/5tw+WgC CrQ+n05RtEljtp
Message-ID: <51027F3E.6010904@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:49:02 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.21; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.450, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Tyiiq-0002QN-34 6ec8ff5902ad28d35f70404dd3814e24
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: #96 Conditional GET text
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51027F3E.6010904@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16215
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi there,

in the meantime Roy has addressed the main part of the issue, clarifying 
that conditional request header fields apply to many methods other than GET.

I still think it would be good to say more about the default case, though.

Right now, the spec says:

"The new method ought to describe whether it can be made conditional 
(Section 5.2) and, if so, how a server responds when the condition is 
false." -- 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-latest.html#considerations.for.new.methods>

This invites more special cases. Can't we simply state that *all* new 
methods can be made conditional, and describe the default behavior for 
the conditions?

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email