Re: Informal Last Call for draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, was: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.txt from Martin J. Dürst on 2012-01-31 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from January to March 2012)

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:34:15 +0900
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4F279977.1080705@it.aoyama.ac.jp>

On 2012/01/31 2:28, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-01-30 12:17, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

>> Don't repeat so much of / so literally the Abstract in the Introduction,
>> it's confusing to read the duplicate.
>
> I like it that way :-)

I'm definitely with Björn on this one. Reading the same text twice is 
really annoying. If this were the way it should be, there would be no 
need at all for both an abstract and an introduction.

>> to the name, `useUTF8` or `use-utf-8="yes" or some such would have been
>> clearer).
>
> That's another good suggestion; we're not going to allow any other
> encoding, so maybe making it a real flag is the best solution. What do
> others think?

I'm all in favor.

Regards,   Martin.

Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 07:34:49 UTC