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

Re: NIT (squared): v11-spec-04.txt: 14.36 Range

From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 15:21:22 -0500 (CDT)
To: jg@w3.org
Cc: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960604151556.1168A-100000@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
On Tue, 4 Jun 1996 jg@w3.org wrote:

> Please limit suggestions at this date to substantive changes; I'm going to be 
> pretty draconian on nits in the next draft.  I do not want to take of introducing
> new problems in the draft when fixing existing ones.  So rewrites, particularly
> that add sentences that may cause interactions that did not exist before,
> are likely to be frowned on by the editor this time around.
> 
> If we feel more wordsmithing is needed, we can do it between proposed
> standard and draft standard.
> 
> As to the particular suggestion, it fails one test at least:
> 
> A famous individual once wrote (don't have my Bartlett's quotations
> handy, so I won't have it right) something like:
> 
> 'My apologies for such a long letter; I was too busy to write a short one.'
> 
> Shorter is usually (not always) better.  Fewer words to misinterpret.
> 				- Jim Gettys
> 

One part of my suggestion was a little more than a nit.
Perhaps it's a NIT, but I won't say FATAL. ;)

Anyway, in the second paragraph if "greater than" is not changed to
"greater than or equal to" then a range where last-byte-pos equals
the file length is undefined.  Ok, ok, so maybe it is a nit.

John Franks 	Dept of Math. Northwestern University
		john@math.nwu.edu
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 1996 13:23:58 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:02 EDT