W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2021

Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-16

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2021 18:43:44 +0200
To: Mohit Sethi M <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ad35c2ae-37e1-6535-3445-d44ead1bc432@gmx.de>
Am 30.05.2021 um 18:37 schrieb Mohit Sethi M:
>
> On 5/30/21 7:25 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Am 30.05.2021 um 18:15 schrieb Mohit Sethi M:
>>> ...
>>>> Which specific HTML version did you use, and what was the problem?
>>>
>>> When I click on the link for [Semantics]:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-16#ref-Semantics
>>>
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-16#ref-Semantics>,
>>>
>>> I am not taken to the section on normative references (as one would
>>> expect). Instead, the link points to section 1.2? It works fine in this
>>> html version:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-16.html#Semantics
>>>
>>> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-16.html#Semantics>.
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>> The first of these two is generated by a tool based on the plain text
>> version. That tools ocassionally gets things wrong; known issue with the
>> tool, not with the spec.
>
> I did write in my review that the source looks fine and I suspect it is
> something to do with the tooling.
> ...

Yep, and thanks for the review.

As it happens I'm interested in the tools as well, thus I wanted to
understand what was wrong.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 30 May 2021 16:44:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 30 May 2021 16:44:03 UTC