- From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:55:55 +0200
- To: Dee Holtsclaw <ldholtsclaw@gmail.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, draft-ietf-httpbis-cice@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Apologies in advance for nitpicking. As that was at the end of the message, I don't see how it qualifies as "in advance", but now I'm the one picking the silliest nits. :-) And no apology needed; cleaner text is always good. > I know this is picking nits, but shouldn't the first sentence in section 5 > (Deployment Considerations) have "already" and "are" transposed? No, I don't think so. I think that "servers are already required to eat bananas" and "servers already are required to eat bananas" mean the same thing. The adverb is a very flexible thing. > I would also suggest dropping the "does" in favor of simply "uses": > > Servers that do not support content codings in requests are already required > to fail a request that uses a content coding. On this one, I agree with you. If the previous sentence or paragraph had said, "If a request does not use content coding, blah blah," then the "does" would be a useful counterpoint. But without that, it's a little awkward. Julian might consider putting this on his queue of changes, though my guess is that the RFC Editor would make this change anyway. Barry
Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2015 15:56:23 UTC