- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 16:42:38 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Julian Reschke wrote: >> RFC1630 (URI Syntax) -- there'll be a normative reference to a newer spec. >> RFC1738 (URL) -- there'll be a normative reference to a newer spec. >> RFC1808 (Relative Uniform Resource Locators). > > It is unclear to me that these should be referenced at all. Understood. We have (or should have) a separate issue for cleaning up section 3.2 when we update to RFC3986 (URI). IMHO we should get rid of all the historical references, and then just point people at RFC3986, Section 1. >> RFC1950 (ZLIB). >> RFC1951 (DEFLATE). >> RFC1952 (GZIP). > > Understanding these documents is required in order to understand the > coding values defined for the coding registry established and used by > the document; why would it be appropriate to cite them as informative? Good point. In this case I followed <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gettys-http-v11-spec-rev-00#section-18> which made these informative as well. I guess the reasoning is that RFC2616 compliant software does not need to support content encodings "gzip" or "deflate". More feedback appreciated (and thanks for checking, Björn). Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 28 May 2007 14:42:58 UTC