- From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 10:19:22 +0100
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hi, > On 18 Aug 2016, at 00:43, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> wrote: > >> On 04/19/2016 12:18 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> I *think* we've come to a place where there's agreement on accepting >> the errata, but with BWS replacing OWS throughout; i.e.: > >> chunk-ext = *( BWS ";" BWS chunk-ext-name [ BWS "=" BWS chunk-ext-val ] ) > >> Everyone OK with that? > > There were no objections and two OKs (including mine). > > >> If so -- Alexey, can we just annotate the errata with that when it's >> accepted, or should this one be rejected and a new (smaller and >> correct from the start) one be filed? > > It looks like this thread got stuck after that question and the errata > entry is still in the "Reported" state. I have just witnessed a yet > another developer being confused by this invisible syntax change. Mark, > could you please push this fix forward somehow? Can you please send me how you would like the erratum to look like, containing 3 parts: old text, new text and comments? Then I will get it fixed. Thank you, Alexey
Received on Thursday, 18 August 2016 09:08:08 UTC