W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2006

RFC2616 revision, was: I-D ACTION:draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 17:20:31 +0100
Message-ID: <440C614F.4000104@gmx.de>
To: jg@freedesktop.org
CC: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Jim Gettys wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 16:08 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Jim Gettys wrote:
>>>  > ...
>>>> It would also be good to get it converted from .doc form to XML; when I
>>>> looked last, the tools were not up to the job without a lot of hand work
>>>> that I didn't have time for then.
>>>> ...
>>> An example version of RFC2616 has been available for several years now 
>> s/example/XML/
>>> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/#rfc2616>), and I would think that 
>>> probably would be a good starting point if the modest goal is to apply 
>>> the collected errata, and to update references.
> Said XML crashes Firefox 1.0.7.  Not a good sign.

If it crashes, submit a bug report. If it just produces warning messages 
regarding missing XSLT extensions, that's a known shortcoming of Firefox 

>>> If what's needed here is mainly a document *editor*, and there is indeed 
>>>  consensus over here that we want that revision, then consider me a 
>>> volunteer.
> I think much harder to get commitment that people will actually read and
> verify a draft.  *THAT* is what failed last time, and the number of
> errata since 2616 were enough that you can't trust one person to get it
> right.

I would suspect that people would prefer just to review the changes 
instead of re-reading everything, but that works best if changes are 
kept to a minimum.

To add something constructive to the discussion, I just put the draft in 
question to our site 
and produced drafts relative to RFC2616 

> ...
> The RFC editor also deals with edits for references to other documents
> in the usual case, so if changes since that draft are mostly in the
> references, they can be done by the RFC editor.

That may be true for some changes, but certainly not for all. For 
instance, the revision of RFC2396 changes both grammar productions and 
terminology, so I wouldn't expect that just replacing the reference 
would be good enough.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 16:21:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:39 UTC