Closed aruediger closed 9 years ago
No, this MUST be in line with HTTPbis. So this is a valid issue. Thank you for reporting it!
If you are sure about the changes and you have the time, welcome to send a PR with an updated https://github.com/for-GET/http-decision-diagram/blob/master/httpdd.fsm.cosmogol
I need to find some quiet time to read through, before I make a change.
Done. (#39)
Any updates on this one?
@2beaucoup, i got back to this project's issues last weekend. so expect a reply from me tomorrow. i am really sorry for the silence. thank you
@2beaucoup made a version of the change on the diagram in a (now deleted) branch but i wasn't sure how to proceed until my eyes finally found
A recipient MUST ignore If-Modified-Since if the request contains an
If-None-Match header field; the condition in If-None-Match is
considered to be a more accurate replacement for the condition in
If-Modified-Since, and the two are only combined for the sake of
interoperating with older intermediaries that might not implement
If-None-Match.
and
A recipient MUST ignore If-Unmodified-Since if the request contains
an If-Match header field; the condition in If-Match is considered to
be a more accurate replacement for the condition in
If-Unmodified-Since, and the two are only combined for the sake of
interoperating with older intermediaries that might not implement
If-Match.
Please check if the current state is fine with your understanding https://github.com/for-GET/http-decision-diagram/commit/48ef08c44e2222ae3e75132ad3b4ff87c24aedc0#diff-3 and close the issue.
PS: Pity - it's the first transition crossing, making the diagram a bit less clear.
LGTM! Thanks for confirming and taking the time to look into this.
Hi,
while adding support for conditional requests to spray I discovered a problem in the diagram. The docs state that he diagram follows the indications in httpbis although Conditional Requests - Section 6 suggests that:
C10 if-match-matches: true
should point toE11
andE12 if-none-match-matches: false
should point toJ10
Do you intentionally deviate from httpbis here and try to adhere to RFC2616?