- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 10:42:20 +0100
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Hi there, reminder: this draft has changed considerably since IETF Last Call. See the diffs over here: <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-17.txt&url2=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-14.txt> And yes, that's a huge diff considering the size of the document. Comments: 1) s/Prefer header field/Prefer header filed/ 2) I don't think it's a good idea to use currently unregistered media types in the examples (application/json and text/patch) 3) In Section 1: > Another option available to clients is to utilize Request URI query- > string parameters to express preferences. Doing so, however, results > in a variety of issues affecting the cacheability of responses. That's misleading, as the presence of query parameters (per spec) does not affect the cacheability of results (see also <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012OctDec/0040.html>). Otherwise, the changes look good to me. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 09:42:52 UTC