W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1997

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-http-req-sum-00.txt

From: Dave Kristol <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 97 11:07:29 EDT
Message-Id: <9709191507.AA22816@zp>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
I have one quibble.  There are some lines that have double negatives
and that are, therefore, hard to interpret.  Three examples:

If no-transform, don't add
    Content-Encoding, Content-Length,
    Content-Range, Content-Type            13.5.2   na   MN   na  2
Don't use 200 with partial resp.           13.8     na   MN   MN  1
GET/HEAD: no side effects                  13.9     SN   na   na

I recommend always stating the requirement in the positive sense.  So
these lines would read:

If no-transform, add
    Content-Encoding, Content-Length,
    Content-Range, Content-Type            13.5.2   na   MN   na  2
Use 200 with partial resp.                 13.8     na   MN   MN  1
GET/HEAD: has side effects                 13.9     SN   na   na

This way the SN/MN negations are clearer, I think.

Dave Kristol
Received on Friday, 19 September 1997 08:13:36 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:01 EDT