- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 11:30:50 +1100
- To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, phk@freebsd.dk
On 2 Feb 2018, at 11:25 am, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote: > > On 2 February 2018 at 09:55, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> This draft proposes solutions for a number of issues; see the change notes >> at the end as well as the issues closed to date: >> >> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues?q=is%3Aissue+label%3Aheader-structure+is%3Aclosed >> >> I'm planning on talking about the open issues in London: >> >> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues?q=is%3Aissue+label%3Aheader-structure+is%3Aopen >> ... but if you have feedback before that, it'd be great to hear it on the >> issues or here. >> >> Cheers, > > One question springs to mind: should there be some sort of definition > for algorithmic operations like "remove"? I can infer that it > captures and returns the relevant substring, as distinct from the > "discard" operation, but I feel like it shouldn't need to be inferred. > > Am I being overly pedantic? If it uses different terms for the same operation, that's not great; I've tried to align terminology where I can, so if you see places where there's divergence, please point it out. If one of the terms/phrases used is ambiguous, likewise; that said, I don't think we should define terms if they're not ambiguous. > Oh, and what's with the underscore in 4.9.1 Parsing Binary Content from Text? > > ~~~ > 3. Let b64_content be the result of removing content of input_string > up to but not including the first instance of the character "_". > If there is not a "_" character before the end of input_string, > throw an error. > ~~~ > > Should that be an asterisk? Yes, thanks -- markdown. Fixed in source, hopefully. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 2 February 2018 00:31:19 UTC