- From: Travis Snoozy (Volt) <a-travis@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:27:21 -0800
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
<snip> > > 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. <snip> > 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>. In that case, I'd say "Response header" and "response-header" respectively. (Capital "R" Response, referring to <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis- 02.html#response>.) > More opinions needed :-) The more the merrier. -- Travis
Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2006 18:27:34 UTC