- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 02:30:21 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, fielding@gbiv.com, barryleiba@computer.org, presnick@qti.qualcomm.com, mnot@mnot.net, bjoern@hoehrmann.de, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
* Julian Reschke wrote: >Again, it is not an error. The spec is correct the way it is. I see your >preference to reference instead of copying the rule (and I might >actually agree with it). So what is your desired outcome here? Right now anyone combining the ABNF fragments from the HTTP/1.1 RFCs is likely to come across two independent definitions for the `method` symbol and will have to check what is going on. They will likely notice that the specifications do follow a clear pattern for importing rules, just not for `method`, and then try to find out what's special about it, possibly ultimately con- cluding that there is nothing special about it and they can treat it as if it had been "imported" like any other rule, but they can't really be sure of that conclusion without independent verification. I would like the errata to provide this verification. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015) · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Sunday, 11 January 2015 01:31:10 UTC