- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:36:44 +0100
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Frank Ellermann wrote: >> Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> >>> You are turning "Messages may X iff Y" into "Messages must not X unless Y" >> You've lost me here, isn't that logically equivalent ? If it is equivalent >> Julian's version is clearer. If it is not I likely miss the point. > > Julian's version allows using the same name more than once through a > double negative under the assumption that MAY is the antonym of MUST > NOT. I would not make this assumption, and I think double negatives > are generally more difficult to understand than positive statements. No, "MUST NOT" is not an antonym for "MAY". However MAY do X if and only if Y means the same as MUST NOT do X unless Y I think the latter was clearer as it communicates that the default is that repeating header names are not allowed (that is, headers using list syntax being the exception). > If you want clearer text you would have to split the statements up > and say: list-valued headers may occur more than once, other headers > must not occur more than once. Agreed. BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 12:37:13 UTC