- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 10:21:40 +1000
- To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
- Cc: HTTP <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Aha. Thanks, Tony. Cheers, > On 14 Apr 2015, at 10:18 am, Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> wrote: > > I have a feeling that this is not a problem with the document, but instead with the tooling. > > That is, the missing piece of information is which HTML-ized version of the document was Antonio Vera looking at? > > If he was looking at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234, then yup, it's pointing at the wrong document. The htmlizer tool on tools.ietf.org picked up the "Section ..." text and made that into a link to the section within the current document. > > However, if he was looking at the files in github, he would have seen a link to the proper document. > > > So I think there is nothing that needs to be done here by anyone in the http group. But it might be worth poking Henrik to take a look at the rfcmarkup tool to see if an improvement can be made. > > OR, anyone else can take a look at the rfcmarkup code and see if they can come up with a code fix. I'm sure Henrik would love to buy it back. > > Tony Hansen > > On 4/13/15 7:51 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Antonio, >> >> Thanks for noticing that. I suspect that Julian will correct it in our online source at: >> https://github.com/httpwg/http11bis >> .. and it'll filter through to the places where we can get it in time. >> >> If you like, you can raise an issue here: >> https://github.com/httpwg/http11bis/issues >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >>> On 13 Apr 2015, at 1:43 pm, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>> >>> The following errata report has been rejected for RFC7234, >>> "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching". >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> You may review the report below and at: >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7234&eid=4334 >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> Status: Rejected >>> Type: Editorial >>> >>> Reported by: Antonio Vera <antonio.ignacio.vera@gmail.com> >>> Date Reported: 2015-04-12 >>> Rejected by: Barry Leiba (IESG) >>> >>> Section: 5.3 >>> >>> Original Text >>> ------------- >>> The Expires value is an HTTP-date timestamp, as defined in Section >>> 7.1.1.1 of [RFC7231]. >>> >>> Corrected Text >>> -------------- >>> The Expires value is an HTTP-date timestamp, as defined in Section >>> 7.1.1.1 of [RFC7231]. >>> >>> Notes >>> ----- >>> There's no error in the text itself, but the address of the link in 7.1.1.1 is pointing to a hashtag in RFC 7234, not RFC 7231 as it should. >>> >>> Currently, 7.1.1.1 points to: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234#section-7.1.1.1 >>> It should point to: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-7.1.1.1 >>> --VERIFIER NOTES-- >>> The RFC Editor has nothing to do with the HTML versions on tools.ietf.org, which are unofficial versions, with the HTML conversion on a best-effort basis. >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC7234 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-26) >>> -------------------------------------- >>> Title : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching >>> Publication Date : June 2014 >>> Author(s) : R. Fielding, Ed., M. Nottingham, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed. >>> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >>> Source : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis >>> Area : Applications >>> Stream : IETF >>> Verifying Party : IESG >>> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >> >> > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 00:22:11 UTC