Re: can a conditional header field put conditions on resources other than the target resource?

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2013-01-28 12:12, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 28/01/2013 9:02 p.m., Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2013-01-28 00:41, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>> On 26/01/2013 4:05 a.m., Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> On 2013-01-25 15:58, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 25, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking at
>>>>>> <http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p4-conditional.html#precedence>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "... Other conditional request header fields, defined by extensions
>>>>>> to HTTP, might place conditions on the state of the target resource
>>>>>> in general, such as how the If header field in WebDAV has been
>>>>>> defined to make a request conditional on the presence or absence of
>>>>>> a lock [RFC4918]."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, "If", as defined in RFC 2518 and 4918 can put conditions
>>>>>> on resources other than the target resource, see the "Tagged-list"
>>>>>> production in
>>>>>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4918.html#if.header.syntax>) --
>>>>>> should we rephrase P4 accordingly?
>>>>>
>>>>> WTF? (and I just love the last paragraph in that section)
>>>>
>>>> That just states that RFC 2518 got the syntax wrong (relatively
>>>> politely).
>>>
>>> But the above wording implies that future ones MAY do so if they please
>>> as well.
>>
>> MAY do what?
>
> May define conditionals that refer to resources other than the URL one.

Well, no. The old text did not imply that.

Best regards, Julian