Opened 9 years ago

Closed 9 years ago

#269 closed design (fixed)

ETags and Quotes

Reported by: mnot@… Owned by: mnot@…
Priority: normal Milestone: 14
Component: p4-conditional Severity: Active WG Document
Keywords: Cc:


It's often asked whether this:

ETag: "foo"

is equivalent to this:

ETag: foo

while it's clear that the second form is syntactically invalid, implementers who attempt to be forgiving in what they accept need guidance; should they be considered two different ETags, the same ETag, or should the second ETag be considered equivalent to "*"?

Change History (7)

comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by julian.reschke@…

If it's invalid, we don't say. An obvious choice is to ignore the header field.

Clients that want to be forgiving can treat ETags as opaque strings, and send to the server exactly what they got.

If they want to compare them, they can just compare the opaque values.

Weak etags can be detected by checking for the W/ prefix, and will work with any opaque string; unless the server uses W/ *inside* the unquoted value.

comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by mnot@…

  • Owner set to mnot@…

Prague editors proposal: Highlight the etag comparison function in section 4 (make it a subsection?) and link to it from the various If-* header definitions. No other clarification necessary, as this would be standardising non-standard error-handling based on one implementation.

comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by mnot@…

Partially addressed by [1260]

comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by mnot@…

From [1262]:

Clarify comparison function for If-* headers (see #269).

comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by mnot@…

  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 14
  • Resolution set to incorporated
  • Status changed from new to closed

comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by mnot@…

  • Resolution incorporated deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

comment:7 Changed 9 years ago by mnot@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from reopened to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.