- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 19:40:55 +0100
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Am 25.02.2025 um 18:23 schrieb Paul Kyzivat: > Mark, > > We seem to be talking past on another. > > I get it that you have deferred the syntax to [STRUCTURED-FIELDS], and I > am not reviewing that. > > My point is that the directive in your document to follow the > specification in [STRUCTURED-FIELDS] is not itself clearly normative. > > The statement: > > "The Cache-Groups HTTP Response Header is a List of Strings > [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]." > > doesn't stand out to me as a normative reference that MUST be followed. > It is what I might expect to see for an informative reference. > ... It's a statement of fact. As far as I understand, whether something is normative or not really does not depend on the use of BCP14 language. (if that was the case, STD66 - one of the more essential specs we have - would have a big problem). Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2025 18:41:00 UTC