Re: #462, was: p5: editorial suggestions
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 20 June 2013 18:41 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 35E7F21F9FEE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NlZ3or1y0WgY for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F4621E804B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UpjmO-0004bw-B1 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:40:20 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:40:20 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UpjmO-0004bw-B1@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 1Upjm2-0003Cu-2W for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:39:58 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1Upjm0-00070x-Rd for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:39:57 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.28]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0M3PXK-1Tz0ef0dk0-00r3KO for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:39:29 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2013 18:39:29 -0000
Received: from p5DD965C6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.1.105]) [93.217.101.198] by mail.gmx.net (mp028) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2013 20:39:29 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+NKTFXdGSNrSN4n+DxiZnViDLFn4l7mgmumm5ueB D0j47dOW/nRslu
Message-ID: <51C34C5F.90907@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:39:27 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <5CCE9F20-70A3-4AA0-9ACB-733B3809C106@mnot.net> <51C3212B.8000708@gmx.de> <3A1E0833-F39B-4F21-B93F-8A7144935839@mnot.net> <51C330E3.5020905@gmx.de> <0525D6F0-9728-486A-A5AC-0CB800651D16@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <0525D6F0-9728-486A-A5AC-0CB800651D16@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.18; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.435, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Upjm0-00070x-Rd 21f3dc6b9d94dc1a7bde3df949485f22
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #462, was: p5: editorial suggestions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51C34C5F.90907@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18326
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 2013-06-20 18:52, Mark Nottingham wrote: > ... >> So maybe change >> >> "The Range header field is evaluated after evaluating the preconditions of [Part4] and only if the result of their evaluation is leading toward a 200 (OK) response. In other words, Range is ignored when a conditional GET would result in a 304 (Not Modified) response." >> >> to >> >> "The Range header field is evaluated after evaluating the preconditions of [Part4] and only if the result in absence of the Range header field would be a 200 (OK) response. In other words, Range is ignored when a conditional GET would result in a 304 (Not Modified) response." >> >> ? > > Think so. > ... OK; see <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2299>. > ... >>>>> * 4.3 first paragraph re-defines what validator strength is; this should just be a reference to p4. >>>> >>>> But then it doesn't seem to say exactly the same thing. >>> >>> Well, that's not good, is it? >> >> It wouldn't be good, but it probably also wouldn't be something we can change right now. >> ... I opened a separate ticket for tracking this one: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/489>. Best regards, Julian
- p5: editorial suggestions Mark Nottingham
- Re: #462, was: p5: editorial suggestions Julian Reschke
- #462, was: p5: editorial suggestions Julian Reschke
- Re: #462, was: p5: editorial suggestions Mark Nottingham
- Re: #462, was: p5: editorial suggestions Mark Nottingham
- Re: #462, was: p5: editorial suggestions Julian Reschke