RE: RFC 2616 Errata: Misc. Typos


> > 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.


> 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
> <
> 02.html#rfc.section.6.2>.

In that case, I'd say "Response header" and "response-header" respectively.
(Capital "R" Response, referring to

> More opinions needed :-)

The more the merrier.

-- Travis

Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2006 18:27:34 UTC