- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 12:06:55 +1100
- To: Travis Snoozy (Volt) <a-travis@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Added as i50; http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/index.html#i50 On 2006/12/19, at 6:41 AM, Travis Snoozy (Volt) wrote: > > 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. > > 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. > > 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> > > 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. > > > -- Travis > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 1 January 2007 01:07:03 UTC