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

WGLC: p5 editorial nits

From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:36:26 -0400
Message-ID: <51549BBA.2080702@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hi All,

Sec 1, para 2:  The phrase "obsoleting those parts previously defined in 
[RFC2616]" seems unnecessary since the document boilerplate already 
states as such.  Also, parts 4 and 6 which similarly describe optional 
facilities don't bother with such text.

Sec 2.1, postscript to suffix-byte-range-spec ABNF:  The sentence 
immediately following the description of how to handle a representation 
shorter than the suffix-length begins with "For example..." .  One would 
think that the example would demonstrate over-sized suffix-length case, 
but it doesn't.  I don't think such an example is needed, but I think 
the wording is misleading.  I would suggest removing the "For 
example..." sentence and replacing it with "Examples of 
byte-ranges-specifier values:" or "Additional examples of 
byte-ranges-specifier values:" or "Examples of byte-ranges-specifier 
values using suffix-byte-range-spec:" like is done for the discussion of 
byte-range-spec.

Sec 4.4, Note: suggest changing "... many implementations will simply 
respond with 200 (OK) ..." -> "... many implementations will simply 
respond with the entire selected representation in a 200 (OK) response ..."

General implementation question that I didn't find answered in the 
document:  Can a server that receives a request for multiple ranges 
reply with only a single part corresponding to the first satisfiable 
range?  Or can it coalesce all satisfiable ranges into a single part 
regardless of the overlaps/gaps?

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2013 19:36:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 28 March 2013 19:36:57 UTC