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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:29:43 -0700
Message-Id: <7FEB9A32-0C2E-11D9-B1BD-000A95BD86C0@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roy T.Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

Of course, it would help if I actually cc:ed Graham...

On Sep 21, 2004, at 5:28 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Hi Roy,
>
> Keep in mind that these are seeds for the registries, which is AFAIK  
> why there are the textual summaries in addition to the ToCs. Graham  
> Klyne (cc:ed) wrote the software that helps me generate the listings,  
> and is also the mastermind behind the registry itself (now RFC3864),  
> so he may be able to shed additional light.
>
> Registry entries aren't distinguished by type of standard; remember  
> that non-IETF registrations (e.g., W3C) are allowed. They're only  
> differentiated by whether they were specified by a recognised  
> standards process (the permanent registry) or something more ad hoc  
> (the provisional repository).
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On Sep 21, 2004, at 5:16 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>>> -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/>
>>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2004 00:29:46 GMT

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