- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:43:29 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, collinj@cs.stanford.edu, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thanks for your comments Mark. I've updated the draft, but I have not yet addressed all of your comments. I tried to handle the technical comments in this round. I'll hand the presentational comments in the next round. Detailed response below. On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Mark Nottingham<mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > * It would be helpful to give more information about the use case and > applicability of this header in the Introduction. > > * Likewise, it would be very helpful if it was positioned in relation to > Referer and Origin, perhaps in an Appendix. I've pushed these comments to the next version. > * Section 2 talks about applying the IDNA ToASCII algorithm to parts of a > URI. This doesn't make sense; perhaps you mean IRI? I will address these comments when I have some time to study all the various URL/URI/IRI/DanCURL possibilities. > * The /variable/ syntax is distracting. There were some good alternatives suggested later in the thread. I'll probably move to hyphenated variable names in the next draft. > * Specifying RFC2119 requirements as "Implementations MUST use the following > algorithm..." isn't good practice, as discussed previously. E.g., section 2 > would be better specified as: I've pushed deciding whether to present the requirements as algorithms or declaratively to the next draft. > * Just FYI, IDNA is currently being revised; see > <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/idnabis/>. > > * There's a lot instances of 'implementation-defined value' in prose, but no > context of what these are, how they might be used, etc. It's difficult to write down a correct spec here because these vary from implementation to implementation. > * Section 5 places requirements on User Agents. I'm assuming you mean UAs > that conform to *this* specification; if so, it would be good to spell this > out (either here or in a conformance criteria section). Oops. Missed this one. I'll get it next time. > * The header field-value is defined as containing LWS characters. There > isn't a reference for that rule, and FYI that form is being deprecated by > HTTPbis; it would probably be better to say one or more whitespace > characters. Another option would be to make it a comma-separated list, to > pull it in line with the definitions of other HTTP headers. Done. I didn't quote the origin values as you suggest in a later message because I don't believe it's possible to have a comma or a space in an origin serialization. Adam
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 19:44:30 UTC