On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > Adam: assuming you have a conformance section which invokes RFC2119 and > includes a sentence such as "Requirements phrased in the imperative as > part of algorithms (such as "strip any leading space characters" or > "return false and abort these steps") are to be interpreted with the > meaning of the key word ("must", "should", "may", etc) used in introducing > the algorithm.", and assuming you keep the "must"s in the invokations of > the algorithms, I agree that it makes sense to remove the "must"s from the > steps. Done (using the text you gave me for the cookie spec more recently). >> Separately, as an editorial comment, as listed directly above, I'd like >> to see a big s/resource/resource representation/g (or just >> s/resource/representation/g as the resource is what is identified by the >> URI, not the bag-o-bits returned in an HTTP response. I have some other >> editorial comments too, but those will have to wait until I have time to >> write them down. > > A resource is a bag of bits. I would object to this change. I've removed all mention of resource. The algorithm now operates directly on the octets, however they are obtained. AdamReceived on Tuesday, 26 January 2010 20:23:34 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:21 UTC