W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: FYI: draft-nottingham-hdrreg-http-01

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:16:46 -0700
Message-Id: <B0C40386-0C2C-11D9-BE81-000393753936@gbiv.com>
Cc: HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

> -02 is now available:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-hdrreg-http 
> -02.txt
> It corrects a reference and some contact details, and adds headers from
> HTML 4.

Yikes, that's quite a bit of work.  HTTP is getting messy.

I think it would help the organization a great deal if you got
rid of the useless summary at the beginning of 2.1 and 2.2, and
instead used the ToC for summary.  E.g.,

    2. Standards-track HTTP Header Fields
    2.1 A-IM
    2.2 Accept
    3. Experimental HTTP Header Fields
    4. Informational HTTP Header Fields
    5. Historic HTTP Header Fields
    6.  IANA considerations
    7.  Security considerations

And then be a little more descriptive in the use if the status
field to mark ancient proposals as informational or historic.

       Specify "standard", "experimental", "informational", "historic",
       "obsoleted", or some other appropriate value according to the type
       and status of the primary document in which it is defined.  For
       non-IETF specifications, those formally approved by other
       standards bodies should be labelled as "standard"; others may be
       "informational" or "deprecated" depending on the reason for


Roy T. Fielding                            <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
Chief Scientist, Day Software              <http://www.day.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2004 00:18:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:25 UTC