- From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:04:22 -0800
- To: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>---------- >From: Roy T. Fielding[SMTP:fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU] >Subject: Re: (INTEGOK) rough consensus > ] I like all the suggested wording changes. > >>> Note: the net result of the above is that the digest is >> computed on the content that would be sent over-the-wire, in >>> network byte order, but prior to any transfer coding being >>> applied. > >Why not just say that and leave out the rest? I think the note is far >more effective (and more likely to always be accurate) then the >paragraph >above it. How about switching: the note will be the definitive text, the paragraph above it the explanation/motivational note? I think the explanaority paragraph is useful to relate RFC 1864 to the HTTP context; if everyone else thinks its redundant, I can be persuaded to remove it. Send me private opinions on the utility -- no need to clutter the list: a one liner with "useful" or "not useful" will do. Paul
Received on Monday, 1 April 1996 19:06:51 UTC