- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 09:29:18 +1000
- To: Roy Fielding <fielding@adobe.com>
- Cc: "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Let's move p6 and p7's sections, then. On 01/05/2013, at 5:02 AM, Roy Fielding <fielding@adobe.com> wrote: > On Apr 30, 2013, at 5:01 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> On 2013-04-29 04:28, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> Ok, makes sense. Consider that feedback for the other parts, then. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 29/04/2013, at 1:49 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2013-04-23 07:09, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>>> Also, the requirements and considerations for registries in our other parts are defined in the IANA Considerations section; here, they're defined in the main document (2.3). Why the difference? >>>>> ... >>>> >>>> This used to be consistent (in the main document), but it changed some time ago in P1, P2, P4 and P5. >>>> >>>> P6 (Cache-Control Extensions) and P7 (Auth schemes) still have them in the main document. >>>> >>>> Consistency would be good, yes. I personally *prefer* the original placement, because "IANA Considerations" is really *that* and nothing more; the considerations for extensions really are important completely independently of whether somethings gets registered with IANA or not. >>>> >>>> Best regards, Julian >> >> OK, I have opened a separate ticket for this >> (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/464>) and plan to >> move these sections to back where they were in the -20 drafts. > > No, that would substantially harm the reading experience. I moved > them out because someone who is interested in learning the protocol > has almost nothing in common with someone looking to invent > a new protocol element, and the advice within those sections is > really for the expert reviewers. > > ....Roy > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2013 23:29:43 UTC