Re: RFC 2616 Errata: Misc. Typos

Travis Snoozy (Volt) schrieb:
> 2006-12-19 00:36 -0800 Julian Reschke said:
>>> 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?
> 
> I used quotes because there are other portions of the spec that quote these words when referring to the BCP14 meaning (as opposed to applying the BCP14 meaning). See the section 14.9.3 (top of page 113), and section 4.4 (page 33).

ACK. Will check.

> <snip>
> 
>>> 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
>> consistent?
> 
> I assume "that" is referring to the "response header" versus "response-header" change. Unless these two versions have different meanings, I'd say the usage should probably be consistent throughout the entire document. I didn't notice (or if I did, I didn't annotate) any other spots where this happened, so if I omitted other occurrences, that's just an oversight on my part.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- Travis

IMHO there's a difference between those two. If we say "response 
header", we're talking about a header on a response. When we say 
"response-header", it's about the things described in 
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-02.html#rfc.section.6.2>.

More opinions needed :-)

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2006 18:21:18 UTC