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

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

From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 10:43:21 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVCWr8HUyBehtOBoBxzt+Kgqr758=ffDyv6ws-XeL92WcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Very good catch, Karl!

> 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.

I think that's not the right fix, though.  It really is an example,
and the MUST is already specified above this.  I think the right
answer is to lower-case the "must", or change it to "then it first
responds... and immediately follows that...."

Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2013 15:43:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:09 UTC