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

Re: #464, was: p7: editorial suggestions

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 09:29:18 +1000
Cc: "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1976FE49-D9AC-4678-8668-0357861955A8@mnot.net>
To: Roy Fielding <fielding@adobe.com>
Let's move p6 and p7's sections, then.


On 01/05/2013, at 5:02 AM, Roy Fielding <fielding@adobe.com> wrote:

> On Apr 30, 2013, at 5:01 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> On 2013-04-29 04:28, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> 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
>> 
>> OK, I have opened a separate ticket for this 
>> (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/464>) and plan to 
>> move these sections to back where they were in the -20 drafts.
> 
> No, that would substantially harm the reading experience.  I moved
> them out because someone who is interested in learning the protocol
> has almost nothing in common with someone looking to invent
> a new protocol element, and the advice within those sections is
> really for the expert reviewers.
> 
> ....Roy
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2013 23:29:43 UTC

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