Re: WGLC issue: ambiguity in part 1 example
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 18 February 2013 00:14 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 2E6EF21E8055 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:14:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.456
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.143, 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 SVAc7BSrPYFc for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:14:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A930421E8051 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:14:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1U7ENA-0001x5-Dk for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:14:20 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:14:20 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1U7ENA-0001x5-Dk@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1U7EN3-0001uI-6L for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:14:13 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1U7EMy-000416-DG for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:14:13 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.197.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 639D2509B6; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:13:46 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <51203212.9000009@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:13:43 +1100
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4B8BB38E-B8FB-4319-8507-41CF9EE0A661@mnot.net>
References: <51203212.9000009@treenet.co.nz>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.306, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1U7EMy-000416-DG 5f43e0684826760bd88689a6ae0fc46e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WGLC issue: ambiguity in part 1 example
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4B8BB38E-B8FB-4319-8507-41CF9EE0A661@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16639
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>
Thanks, Amos; I've created an editorial ticket - http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/433 Cheers, On 17/02/2013, at 12:27 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > Part 1 section 2.1 example server response contains an entity body and a Content-Length header. > > The Content-Length header is 2 bytes larger than the visible/printable bytes in the entity and it is not made clear that there are invisible trailer bytes being included in the in the displayed entity size. > > I think at this early stage of the texts it would be best to keep things simple and only have the Content-Length equal to the visible bytes - "Hello world!" being 12 bytes long. > > Amos > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
- 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