Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] http-core and Friends (#3513)

[Bence Béky <[e-mail]>]

@bencebeky requested changes on this pull request.

LGTM modulo nits.

>  
 #### Pseudo-Header Fields
 
-As in HTTP/2, HTTP/3 uses special pseudo-header fields beginning with the ':'
-character (ASCII 0x3a) to convey the target URI, the method of the request, and
-the status code for the response.
+As in HTTP/2, HTTP/3 uses a series of pseudo-header field lines beginning with

Why "field lines" not "fields"?  Focus is on semantics, not representation.

>  
 #### Pseudo-Header Fields
 
-As in HTTP/2, HTTP/3 uses special pseudo-header fields beginning with the ':'
-character (ASCII 0x3a) to convey the target URI, the method of the request, and
-the status code for the response.
+As in HTTP/2, HTTP/3 uses a series of pseudo-header field lines beginning with
+the ':' character (ASCII 0x3a) to convey the target URI, the method of the

It is not the field lines or fields that being with the ':' character, but the field name.  Maybe "a series of pseudo-fields with field name beginning with the ':' character"?

>  pseudo-header fields other than those defined in this document, except as
 negotiated via an extension; see {{extensions}}.
 
-Pseudo-header fields are only valid in the context in which they are defined.
-Pseudo-header fields defined for requests MUST NOT appear in responses;
-pseudo-header fields defined for responses MUST NOT appear in requests.
-Pseudo-header fields MUST NOT appear in trailers.  Endpoints MUST treat a
-request or response that contains undefined or invalid pseudo-header fields as
-malformed ({{malformed}}).
+Pseudo-fields are only valid in the context in which they are defined.

"Pseudo-field" is used here without any introduction.  Another problem is that the punctuation in "pseudo-header field" is misleading: it is a header field that is pseudo, not a field that is pseudo-header.  "Pseudo header-field" would be more accurate, but clumsy.  I recommend removing "pseudo-header field" entirely and only using "pseudo-field".  Then first sentence of this section becomes "As in HTTP/2, HTTP/3 uses a series of pseudo-fields in the header field section".

>  
 #### Pseudo-Header Fields
 
-As in HTTP/2, HTTP/3 uses special pseudo-header fields beginning with the ':'
-character (ASCII 0x3a) to convey the target URI, the method of the request, and
-the status code for the response.
+As in HTTP/2, HTTP/3 uses a series of pseudo-header field lines beginning with

"As in HTTP/2, HTTP/3 uses" does not make sense.  A subject is missing: who is using pseudo-headers in HTTP/2.  It would be better to write either "Like HTTP/2, HTTP/3 uses" or "As in HTTP/2, in HTTP/3 one uses".

>  promises. When the same Push ID is promised on multiple request streams, the
-decompressed request header sets MUST contain the same fields in the
+decompressed request field sets MUST contain the same fields in the

"field set" is not defined in SEMANTICS.  Maybe "field sections" would be more appropriate?

> @@ -1308,7 +1310,7 @@ peer combines the two sets to conclude which choice will be used.  SETTINGS does
 not provide a mechanism to identify when the choice takes effect.
 
 Different values for the same parameter can be advertised by each peer. For
-example, a client might be willing to consume a very large response header,
+example, a client might be willing to consume a very large response field set,

Maybe "field section" instead of "field set", because "field set" is not defined in SEMANTICS.

> @@ -1410,15 +1412,15 @@ error of type H3_SETTINGS_ERROR.
 ### PUSH_PROMISE {#frame-push-promise}
 
 The PUSH_PROMISE frame (type=0x5) is used to carry a promised request header
-set from server to client on a request stream, as in HTTP/2.
+field set from server to client on a request stream, as in HTTP/2.

Maybe "field section" instead of "field set", because "field set" is not defined in SEMANTICS.

> @@ -1445,7 +1447,7 @@ order, and both the name and the value in each field MUST be exact
 matches. Clients SHOULD compare the request header sets for resources promised
 multiple times. If a client receives a Push ID that has already been promised
 and detects a mismatch, it MUST respond with a connection error of type
-H3_GENERAL_PROTOCOL_ERROR. If the decompressed header sets match exactly, the
+H3_GENERAL_PROTOCOL_ERROR. If the decompressed field sets match exactly, the

Maybe "field sections"?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3513#pullrequestreview-381108014