- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:22:42 +0000
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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.
Adam
Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2010 20:23:34 UTC