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

RE: RFC 2616 Errata: Misc. Typos

From: Travis Snoozy (Volt) <a-travis@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:27:21 -0800
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <86EDC3963F04D546BED8996F77D290F6049D11761B@NA-EXMSG-C138.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

<snip>

> > I assume "that" is referring to the "response header" versus "response-
> > header" change. Unless these two versions have different meanings, I'd
> > say the usage should probably be consistent throughout the entire
> > document.

<snip>

> IMHO there's a difference between those two. If we say "response
> header", we're talking about a header on a response. When we say
> "response-header", it's about the things described in
> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-
> 02.html#rfc.section.6.2>.

In that case, I'd say "Response header" and "response-header" respectively.
(Capital "R" Response, referring to
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-
02.html#response>.)

> More opinions needed :-)

The more the merrier.


-- Travis
Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2006 18:27:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:53 GMT