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

draft-snell-http-prefer-17 feedback

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 10:42:20 +0100
Message-ID: <50BDC57C.3020308@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
CC: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Hi there,

reminder: this draft has changed considerably since IETF Last Call. See 
the diffs over here:

<http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-17.txt&url2=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-14.txt>

And yes, that's a huge diff considering the size of the document.

Comments:

1) s/Prefer header field/Prefer header filed/

2) I don't think it's a good idea to use currently unregistered media 
types in the examples (application/json and text/patch)

3) In Section 1:

>    Another option available to clients is to utilize Request URI query-
>    string parameters to express preferences.  Doing so, however, results
>    in a variety of issues affecting the cacheability of responses.

That's misleading, as the presence of query parameters (per spec) does 
not affect the cacheability of results (see also 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012OctDec/0040.html>).

Otherwise, the changes look good to me.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 09:42:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 December 2012 09:42:55 GMT