- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:43:30 +1000
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Now i84. <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i84> On 29/09/2007, at 7:36 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > RFC 2616 sections 9.5 (POST) and 9.6 (PUT) have the following > useless waste of bits > > POST requests MUST obey the message transmission requirements > set out > in section 8.2. > > See section 15.1.3 for security considerations. > > and > > PUT requests MUST obey the message transmission requirements set > out > in section 8.2. > > respectively. They can be safely deleted without changing HTTP. > > Section 8.2 is not specific to PUT and POST. Likewise, a content-free > forward pointer to just one of the many subsections on security > consideration is a total waste of brain cells. > > Those are just two examples of what can only be described as a > spaghetti style of content-free cross-references within the spec > that make it very hard to read. They should be removed in general > at the editors' discretion. > > ....Roy > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 06:45:25 UTC