W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:22:42 +0000
Message-ID: <7789133a1001261222o41345482ya0d59d21b06d054e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> Adam: assuming you have a conformance section which invokes RFC2119 and
> includes a sentence such as "Requirements phrased in the imperative as
> part of algorithms (such as "strip any leading space characters" or
> "return false and abort these steps") are to be interpreted with the
> meaning of the key word ("must", "should", "may", etc) used in introducing
> the algorithm.", and assuming you keep the "must"s in the invokations of
> the algorithms, I agree that it makes sense to remove the "must"s from the
> steps.

Done (using the text you gave me for the cookie spec more recently).

>> Separately, as an editorial comment, as listed directly above, I'd like
>> to see a big s/resource/resource representation/g (or just
>> s/resource/representation/g as the resource is what is identified by the
>> URI, not the bag-o-bits returned in an HTTP response.  I have some other
>> editorial comments too, but those will have to wait until I have time to
>> write them down.
> A resource is a bag of bits. I would object to this change.

I've removed all mention of resource.  The algorithm now operates
directly on the octets, however they are obtained.

Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2010 20:23:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 1 October 2015 05:36:38 UTC