W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > February 2010

Re: New CT Draft 1y (was Re: [minutes] BPWG Teleconference 2010-02-02)

From: Eduardo Casais <casays@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:15:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <653769.33435.qm@web45012.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
To: public-bpwg@w3.org
Some editorial comments -- for the sake of legibility and consistency.

Section 1.1

"[...] it is out of scope to provide a thoroughgoing solution to control
of transforming proxies [...]"

Wording? "a thoroughgoing solution to control transforming proxies is 
out of scope"


"While complying with this section 4.1.5 Alteration of HTTP Header Field 
Values and 4.2.5 Receipt of Vary HTTP Header Field proxies should [...]"

Wording? "these sections" instead of "this section".


"A proxy may apply heuristics of various kinds [...]"

Shouldn'it be "A proxy MAY apply ..."?

Section K.6

"[...] and are not included in the IANA registry of HTTP header fields."

Consistency with "... and are not included in the IANA registry 
of permanent HTTP header fields."


Received on Monday, 8 February 2010 20:16:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:55 UTC