RE: I18N feedback on Issue-88

Phillips, Addison, Wed, 19 May 2010 12:26:49 -0400:
>> 
>> Pointer to where the editor said this? Or perhaps the editor can
>> confirm?
> 
> It was in his change proposal, IIRC.

Logically, it cannot be found in the proposal to make Content-Language 
pragma 100% *in*valid - as then the permitted syntax of pragma and HTTP 
headers, will - of course - differ. Consequently, if you look at the 
proposed spec text, you'll see that this variant doesn't include any 
syntax checking of the pragma, as the pure presence of the pragma is 
wrong.

The other option is the current version of the spec (for which he has 
written a counter proposal in its defense  - he only has these two 
proposals). However, the current spec says exactly the opposite of what 
you say: the syntax it allows for the pragma differs from that which 
HTTP allows.

My prop is clear on permitting same syntax in pragma as in HTTP.
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 17:13:28 UTC