W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

RE: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary

From: Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:31:33 +0000
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280BC048@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:27 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: draft-kucherawy-httpbis-summary
> 
> On 28 March 2012 06:15, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:
> > How about "IANA actions in this document"?
> 
> I think that the concern is that you focus on IANA, when what your
> users really care about is what _pieces_ of HTTP can be found in the
> part in question.  Maybe something more like:
> 
> "[http-p1] describes these components/pieces/bits/things/stuff of
> HTTP:"

Essentially what I've indexed ends up being the same thing.  If you find the IANA action for registering X, then you will also find either the very definition of X, or at least specific reference to its definition.

I could change it to "The following major HTTP components are defined" in each document section, and then include a paragraph in the Introduction that says that the IANA actions in each document can be gleaned from that summary.  Good enough?

-MSK
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 04:31:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:57 GMT