#433, was: WGLC issue: ambiguity in part 1 example
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 19 February 2013 13:24 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D41B121F8B8B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 05:24:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.783
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.783 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.816, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GslcBW-CcXmX for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 05:24:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08EA021F8B84 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 05:24:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1U7nA9-0008MX-Ro for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:23:13 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:23:13 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1U7nA9-0008MX-Ro@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1U7nA2-0008Lg-2k for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:23:06 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1U7nA0-00021S-Uq for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:23:06 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.12]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LwCie-1UwwdM0Odi-018420 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:22:38 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2013 13:22:37 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.102]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp012) with SMTP; 19 Feb 2013 14:22:37 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19H6SYo4I5HbXwZG/mnpfVqvUrLs0iNV1K5zYts2G zCD7HkrabBWUkt
Message-ID: <51237C9A.4080104@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:22:34 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <51203212.9000009@treenet.co.nz> <4B8BB38E-B8FB-4319-8507-41CF9EE0A661@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B8BB38E-B8FB-4319-8507-41CF9EE0A661@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.19; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.467, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1U7nA0-00021S-Uq 761d22b25cb6dfd9d17bf5a7ff705328
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: #433, was: WGLC issue: ambiguity in part 1 example
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51237C9A.4080104@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16684
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
On 2013-02-18 01:13, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Thanks, Amos; I've created an editorial ticket - > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/433 > > Cheers, > ... Fixed by keeping the example, but adding a note mentioning the trailing CR LF (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2185>). Best regards, Julian
- Re: WGLC issue: ambiguity in part 1 example Mark Nottingham
- WGLC issue: ambiguity in part 1 example Amos Jeffries
- #433, was: WGLC issue: ambiguity in part 1 example Julian Reschke
- Re: WGLC issue: ambiguity in part 1 example Roy T. Fielding
- Re: WGLC issue: ambiguity in part 1 example Amos Jeffries
- Re: WGLC issue: ambiguity in part 1 example Roy T. Fielding