W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1996

RE: (INTEGOK) rough consensus

From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:04:22 -0800
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-77-MSG-960402030422Z-6948@red-05-imc.itg.microsoft.com>
To: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/148
>From: 	Roy T. Fielding[SMTP:fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU]
>Subject: 	Re: (INTEGOK) rough consensus 
] I like all the suggested wording changes.
>>>      Note: the net result of the above is that the digest is
>>       computed on the content that would be sent over-the-wire, in
>>>      network byte order, but prior to any transfer coding being 
>>>      applied.
>Why not just say that and leave out the rest?  I think the note is far
>more effective (and more likely to always be accurate) then the
>above it.

How about switching: the note will be the definitive text, the paragraph
above it the explanation/motivational note?

I think the explanaority paragraph is useful to relate RFC 1864 to the
HTTP context; if everyone else thinks its redundant, I can be persuaded
to remove it.

Send me private opinions on the utility -- no need to clutter the list:
a one liner with "useful" or "not useful" will do.

Received on Monday, 1 April 1996 19:06:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:16 UTC