On 27/01/2010, at 7:22 AM, Adam Barth wrote: > 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). Adam, it might be worth having a quiet word with a few people at the IETF about whether or not this style of specification is going to cause problems down the road. Lisa and Alexey would be a good start, and Julian would surely have an informed opinion. > >>> 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. Very diplomatic :) Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/Received on Thursday, 28 January 2010 03:36:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:21 UTC