W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1995

Re: any more comments?

From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 17:44:11 PDT
Message-Id: <9508240242.AA05954@netmail2.microsoft.com>
To: fielding@beach.w3.org, http-wg-request%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Howard's interpretation is exactly what I meant. My inclusion of the 
table seems to have confused things. It was actually just the way I was 
personally using to help me summarize the information that I would 
present basically as Howard shows below.

I don't understand Roy's comment about duplicating every line of the 
spec. My intent was that the bulk of the information about each field 
should be where it is in the current spec, and presence in the list of 
fields for each method is really just an indiciation that that info 
applies to that method.

I recognize Roy's dilemma -- if you're really going to be precise, then 
you also have to say what response header fields are appropriate
----------
] From: Howard Melman  <melman@osf.org>
] To: Roy Fielding  <fielding@beach.w3.org>
] Subject: Re: any more comments?
] Date: Wednesday, August 23, 1995 5:26PM
]
]
] On Wed Aug 23, 1995, Roy Fielding wrote:
]
] > Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com> writes:
] >
] >
] I don't think Paul necessarily meant a table.
Received on Wednesday, 23 August 1995 18:57:01 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:26 EDT