W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: p7: editorial suggestions

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:28:15 +1000
Message-Id: <9F6574E6-2A68-46A8-80E8-30B332F7397E@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Ok, makes sense. Consider that feedback for the other parts, then. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 29/04/2013, at 1:49 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2013-04-23 07:09, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Also, the requirements and considerations for registries in our other parts are defined in the IANA Considerations section; here, they're defined in the main document (2.3). Why the difference?
>> ...
> This used to be consistent (in the main document), but it changed some time ago in P1, P2, P4 and P5.
> P6 (Cache-Control Extensions) and P7 (Auth schemes) still have them in the main document.
> Consistency would be good, yes. I personally *prefer* the original placement, because "IANA Considerations" is really *that* and nothing more; the considerations for extensions really are important completely independently of whether somethings gets registered with IANA or not.
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 29 April 2013 02:28:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC