- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:16:46 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> -02 is now available:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-hdrreg-http
> -02.txt
>
> It corrects a reference and some contact details, and adds headers from
> HTML 4.
Yikes, that's quite a bit of work. HTTP is getting messy.
I think it would help the organization a great deal if you got
rid of the useless summary at the beginning of 2.1 and 2.2, and
instead used the ToC for summary. E.g.,
2. Standards-track HTTP Header Fields
2.1 A-IM
2.2 Accept
...
3. Experimental HTTP Header Fields
...
4. Informational HTTP Header Fields
...
5. Historic HTTP Header Fields
...
6. IANA considerations
7. Security considerations
...
And then be a little more descriptive in the use if the status
field to mark ancient proposals as informational or historic.
Status:
Specify "standard", "experimental", "informational", "historic",
"obsoleted", or some other appropriate value according to the type
and status of the primary document in which it is defined. For
non-IETF specifications, those formally approved by other
standards bodies should be labelled as "standard"; others may be
"informational" or "deprecated" depending on the reason for
registration.
Cheers,
Roy T. Fielding <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
Chief Scientist, Day Software <http://www.day.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2004 01:13:25 UTC