W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4224)

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
Message-ID: <klj3ba5a49nru425pqd395fimc842v4r97@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:36 UTC