- From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 96 15:20:54 MDT
- To: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Can we eliminate the double negatives in the first bullet list?
Proposed new wording:
... the protocol requires that transparency may be relaxed only if
+ there is an explicit protocol-level request (when relaxed by client or
origin server)
+ there is a way to warn the end user (when relaxed by cache or client)
That's a reasonable suggestion. I'd reword it slightly,
... the protocol requires that transparency may be relaxed only
. by an explicit protocol-level request (when relaxed by client
or origin server)
. and with an explicit warning to the end user (when relaxed by
cache or client)
-Jeff
Received on Tuesday, 14 May 1996 15:30:20 UTC