- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 17:12:14 +1000
- To: Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
- Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure@ietf.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Hi Murray, Thanks for the feedback. See responses below. > On 21 May 2020, at 5:06 pm, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > I support Benjamin's DISCUSS point about case sensitivity especially with > respect to how a consumed dictionary should be used. It's fine if you want to > say that the rules for key matching are left to the authors of specifications > of future structured fields, but if that's the case, please do say so. I believe this was addressed as part of Ben's DISCUSS. > Should Section 3.1 be explicit that lists are ordered? It does say "array" but > some definitions I found for that term don't explicitly say anything about > order either, just a "collection". I don't think that's confused anyone to date; if it were unordered, we'd say "set." > As my colleagues have already done a rather thorough job, all I have left is a > few nits: > > Nits: > > Section 3.1.2: > * "... key-values pairs ..." -- s/values/value/ Already covered by your colleagues :) > Section 3.2: > * First paragraph, two instances of "items" should be capitalized. > * "Note that dictionaries ..." -- capitalize "dictionaries" > * "... Inner List of tokens:" -- capitalize "tokens" > * "A Dictionary with a mix of singular and list values ..." -- capitalize > "list", and maybe "Item" instead of "singular"? See <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/a1d48ea7132>. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2020 07:12:37 UTC