W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: FYI: draft-nottingham-hdrreg-http-01

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:16:46 -0700
Message-Id: <B0C40386-0C2C-11D9-BE81-000393753936@gbiv.com>
Cc: HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

> -02 is now available:
>    
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-hdrreg-http 
> -02.txt
>
> It corrects a reference and some contact details, and adds headers from
> HTML 4.

Yikes, that's quite a bit of work.  HTTP is getting messy.

I think it would help the organization a great deal if you got
rid of the useless summary at the beginning of 2.1 and 2.2, and
instead used the ToC for summary.  E.g.,

    2. Standards-track HTTP Header Fields
    2.1 A-IM
    2.2 Accept
    ...
    3. Experimental HTTP Header Fields
    ...
    4. Informational HTTP Header Fields
    ...
    5. Historic HTTP Header Fields
    ...
    6.  IANA considerations
    7.  Security considerations
    ...

And then be a little more descriptive in the use if the status
field to mark ancient proposals as informational or historic.

    Status:
       Specify "standard", "experimental", "informational", "historic",
       "obsoleted", or some other appropriate value according to the type
       and status of the primary document in which it is defined.  For
       non-IETF specifications, those formally approved by other
       standards bodies should be labelled as "standard"; others may be
       "informational" or "deprecated" depending on the reason for
       registration.


Cheers,

Roy T. Fielding                            <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
Chief Scientist, Day Software              <http://www.day.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2004 00:18:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:35 GMT