W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2022

Re: Editorial styling inconsistencies when referring to Structured Fields

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 09:46:15 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <68BF6FDC-2F80-4B72-8EBE-CE1217A9D73B@mnot.net>
To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Huh. Never said *I* had to be consistent :)

Yeah, that seems like a good idea. I've opened:


> On 17 Feb 2022, at 9:41 am, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Mark,
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022, 22:28 Mark Nottingham, <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> I wasn't terribly happy about including ABNF in SF, but IIRC some really wanted it because it's expected for HTTP headers. *shrug*
> I'd recommend avoiding it if possible, or at least only using it in separate ABNF blocks (not prose).
> I can get behind that. Although I'll note that proxy-status has 29 instances in prose and priorities has 2. Maybe we should fix these up as part of AUTH48, in order to set some consistent examples?
> Cheers
> Lucas

Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2022 22:46:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 16 February 2022 22:46:38 UTC