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

[editorial] awkward sentence for a MUST statement in section 6.3 Upgrade

From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 22:53:27 +0900
Message-Id: <C501394B-0C7F-43CD-B849-1C38FA8EAD40@opera.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
This is just an editorial comment.

In section 6.3 Upgrade in Version 21 of messaging
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-21#section-6.3

    For example, if the Upgrade header field 
    is received in a GET request and the server 
    decides to switch protocols, then it MUST 
    first respond with a 101 (Switching Protocols) 
    message in HTTP/1.1 and then immediately 
    follow that with the new protocol's equivalent 
    of a response to a GET on the target resource.


I would drop the "For example", if it's really a MUST.

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations, Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2013 13:54:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2013 13:54:04 GMT