- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:34:50 +0200
- To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Dee Holtsclaw <ldholtsclaw@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2015-07-22 17:55, Barry Leiba wrote: >> Apologies in advance for nitpicking. > > As that was at the end of the message, I don't see how it qualifies as > "in advance", but now I'm the one picking the silliest nits. :-) > > And no apology needed; cleaner text is always good. > >> I know this is picking nits, but shouldn't the first sentence in section 5 >> (Deployment Considerations) have "already" and "are" transposed? > > No, I don't think so. I think that "servers are already required to > eat bananas" and "servers already are required to eat bananas" mean > the same thing. The adverb is a very flexible thing. > >> I would also suggest dropping the "does" in favor of simply "uses": >> >> Servers that do not support content codings in requests are already required >> to fail a request that uses a content coding. > > On this one, I agree with you. If the previous sentence or paragraph > had said, "If a request does not use content coding, blah blah," then > the "does" would be a useful counterpoint. But without that, it's a > little awkward. Julian might consider putting this on his queue of > changes, though my guess is that the RFC Editor would make this change > anyway. -> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/c170224b779ee206d672d2ff4d1e371af13d7831> Thanks, Dee!
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2015 06:35:31 UTC