I note that there has been a justification added for declaring that a
last-byte-pos in byte range after the end of the entity should be read
as naming the end of the entity, but I don't think the justification
fully answers the objections raised in:


and re-iterated in


My objections are not strong enough to want to raise a big fuss over
this--I think the current design risks semantic transparency in a
small number of cases to reduce round trips in an equally small number
of cases--but I would be interested in hearing any further arguments
which the editorial group might have heard in favor of this language.

					Ted Hardie

Received on Friday, 31 May 1996 11:24:51 UTC