- From: Simon Yarde <simonyarde@me.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 13:09:20 +0000
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On reflection I can see the current wording is logically correct but it does seem to break with the established style for usage of MUST and MUST NOT — it reads like "MUST not do something". It might be possible to preserve the intention of the wording whilst putting the MUST NOT action up-front: -- > A server MUST NOT generate any header-fields in the trailer-part -- > unless at least one of the following is true: Best Regards Simon On 13 Dec 2013, at 10:36, Simon Yarde <simonyarde@me.com> wrote: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-25#section-4.1.2 > >> A server MUST generate an empty trailer with the chunked transfer >> coding unless at least one of the following is true: > > > RFC2616: > >> A server using chunked transfer-coding in a response MUST NOT use the trailer for any header fields unless at least one of the following is true: > > > Presumably it's nicer to use the affirmative as in RFC2616: > >> A server MUST NOT generate a trailer with the chunked transfer >> coding unless at least one of the following is true: > > than to bend to the MUST clause: > >> A server MUST generate an empty trailer with the chunked transfer >> coding if one of the following is false: > > > Best Regards > > Simon > > >
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 13:10:00 UTC