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

Re: p3-payload proofreading

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:57:23 +0100
Message-ID: <4B685973.900@gmx.de>
To: Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Anthony Bryan wrote:
> ...
>> The definitions of entity/representation/whatnot are on the TODO list
>> anyway.
>>
>> That being said, how about:
>>
>> "Multiple representations may associated with a particular response status."
> 
> 
> "Multiple representations may be associated with a particular response status."

Ack :-)

>>> 2) I think this means "*" for subtype, for example "text/*" and not
>>> literally "type/*". (While we literally mean "*/*").  Maybe because
>>> this comes directly after the ABNF it is fine?
>>>
>>> The asterisk "*" character is used to group media types into ranges,
>>> with "*/*" indicating all media types and "type/*" indicating all
>>> subtypes of that type.
>> I'm not sure what this refers to; could you please supply some context?
> 
> CURRENT TEXT from 5.1 Accept
> 
> The asterisk "*" character is used to group media types into ranges,
> with "*/*" indicating all media types and "type/*" indicating all
> subtypes of that type.
> 
> 
> To me, it reads like these would both be valid, even though only the
> first one actually is? That is, "*/*" is an actual quote, where those
> exact characters are used. And the other is not.
> 
> Accept: */*
> Accept: type/*

Well, if there was a type called "type", it would be valid.

It seems to me that

	"...and "type/*" indicating all subtypes of that type"

is sufficiently clear. Do you think something like

	"...and "X/*" indicating all subtypes of type X"

would make things clearer (this would be easier if IETF specs allowed 
font changes...).

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 16:58:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:16 GMT