Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Be more specific when naming bits (#3089)

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

LPardue commented on this pull request.



> @@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ instructions received on the encoder stream.
 The decoder MUST emit header fields in the order their representations appear in
 the input header block.
 
-### Blocked Decoding
+### Blocked Decoding  {#blocked-decoding}

I think auto anchoring should mean this is not required (I.e. only need to define explicit links that differ from the section title)

> @@ -682,10 +682,10 @@ acknowledged as this instruction does not insert an entry.
 An encoder adds an entry to the dynamic table where the header field name
 matches the header field name of an entry stored in the static or the dynamic
 table using an instruction that starts with the '1' one-bit pattern.  The second
-(`S`) bit indicates whether the reference is to the static or dynamic table. The
+('T') bit indicates whether the reference is to the static or dynamic table. The

T seems odd to me because they both use a table. And then we have T=1 meaning that it's the static table.

Are we really so constrained that we can't assign a noun to bits?

-- 
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/3089#pullrequestreview-301043507