Re: Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary-11: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for pointing out the confusing bits. I updated the draft to
reference the hasRegExpGroups attribute of the URLPattern directly and
changed the "Dictionary" structured field reference to just reference the
"response header" so it reads a lot cleaner (the fact that it is a
Dictionary is already handled earlier in the section).

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary/12/

On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 4:38 PM Warren Kumari via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary-11: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-compression-dictionary/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for writing this (and helping me understand it :-))
>
> I have two comments:
>
> 1: I found:
> "4.  If PATTERN has regexp groups then return FALSE."
> confusing -- I initially understood this to be regex capturing groups (e.g
> "I
> like cheese" -> /.*(c.*se)/ captures 'cheese'). After discussions with
> Patrick
> I see that this is actually
> https://urlpattern.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-urlpattern-hasregexpgroups ...
>
> 2: I also found the number of 'dictionary's in "The "match" value is
> required
> and MUST be included in the Use-As-Dictionary Dictionary for the
> dictionary to
> be considered valid." hard to parse, and I couldn't figure out if the
> second
> "Dictionary" should actually have been "dictionary" (is it a
> [STRUCTURED-FIELDS] term or just a word :-))
>
>
>
>