Re: RFC 2616 Errata: Misc. Typos

Travis Snoozy (Volt) schrieb:
> I've collected several typos; instead of sending out one mail for each, I've decided to just lump them all together in one message. Enjoy!
> 1. Section 7.1, page 42:
> Some of this metainformation is <ins>"</ins>OPTIONAL<ins>"</ins>; some might be <ins>"</ins>REQUIRED<ins>"</ins> by portions of this specification.

I agree that BCP14 keywords shouldn't appear here. But maybe a better 
fix would be to lowercase both?

> 2. Section 13.13, page 99:
> Even though sometimes such resources ought not <del>to</del><ins>be</ins> cached, or ought to expire quickly, user interface considerations may force service authors to resort to other means of preventing caching (e.g. "once-only" URLs) in order not to suffer the effects of improperly functioning history mechanisms.


> 3. Section 14.18, page 124:
> The field value is an HTTP-date, as described in section 3.3.1; it MUST be sent in <ins>the </ins>RFC 1123 [8]<del>-</del><ins> </ins>date format.

(see separate mail)

> 4. Section 14.23, page 129:
> A client MUST include a Host header field in all HTTP/1.1 request messages<del> </del>.


> 5. Section 14.32, page 137:
> Note: because the meaning of "Pragma: no-cache<ins>"</ins> as a response<del> </del><ins>-</ins>header field is not actually specified, it does not provide a reliable replacement for "Cache-Control: no-cache" in a response<ins>.</ins>

Possibly. There are other instances of that. Should we make them all 

> 6. Section 15.6, page 155:
> HTTP/1.1<del>.</del> does not provide a method for a server to direct clients to discard these cached credentials.


Thanks for the good feedback!

I will fix the trivial ones right away.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2006 08:35:56 UTC