W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 1998

RE: Comments (Part 2) on HTTP I-D Rev 05

From: Adams, Glenn <gadams@spyglass.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 18:35:01 GMT
Message-Id: <D181361D7C86D011925700805FFE898E01971620@spybem01.nap.spyglass.com>
To: 'Ross Patterson' <ROSSP@ss1.reston.vmd.sterling.com>, http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: gadams@rafiki.spyglass.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/233

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Ross Patterson
		Sent:	Monday, November 09, 1998 12:07 PM
		To:	http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
		Cc:	gadams@rafiki.spyglass.com
		Subject:	Re: Comments (Part 2) on HTTP I-D Rev 05

		"Adams, Glenn" <gadams@spyglass.com> writes:

		>74. Section 13.5.1, pg. 84, 1st para, 1st bullet, has
		>headers which MUST be ...". The use of MUST and SHOULD
keywords in
		>relative clauses is problematic and should be avoided
since it does not
		>state a requirement per se.

		I don't understand your meaning of "relative clauses",
however this case
		in particular does state a requirement, that
intermediaries forward
		end-to-end headers to the ultimate recipient.  This
requirement isn't
		stated anywhere else in the document, and must be

I use "relative clause" in the sense of English syntax; i.e., a
subordinate clause
introduced by a relative pronoun. Since such clauses are used to comment
on or restrict the scope of interpretation of the preceding noun or noun
it is not appropriate to embed an imperative in such a clause. It should
restated outside of a relative clause; e.g., "End-to-end headers MUST be
Received on Monday, 16 November 1998 09:47:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:06 UTC