- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 09:30:15 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
It gives me a bit of pause, but I think that's OK (as long as they're all clearly defined as DIGITs). On 01/05/2009, at 11:12 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> On 17/04/2009, at 4:53 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> +1 to just removing the language around C-L; DIGIT is unambiguous. >>> >>> +1. >> Sounds like you have enough to go on, then (this is an editorial >> issue). >> Cheers, >> ... > > Apologies for keeping this one open. > > I previously agreed that the grammar is precise enough, and that we > do not need to say "decimal" in the prose, and thus can simplify the > language around Content-Length. > > However, I also like consistency :-) > > We currently have more place where we say "decimal"; should I > simplify those as well? > > Max-Forwards, Retry-After: > > p2-semantics.xml: The Max-Forwards value is a decimal integer > indicating the remaining > p2-semantics.xml: of seconds (in decimal) after the time of the > response. > p2-semantics.xml: Time spans are non-negative decimal integers, > representing time in > > Content-Range, Range: > > p5-range.xml: the selected resource as a decimal number. A > response with status code 206 (Partial > p5-range.xml: positions specified are inclusive. Byte offsets are > decimal and start at zero. > p5-range.xml: entity-body, of a length given by the decimal suffix- > length value. (That is, > > Age: > > p6-cache.xml: Age field-values are non-negative decimal integers, > representing time in seconds. > > BR, Julian -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 23:33:22 UTC