(Multi-people quotations) On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:56:08AM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
> A couple small comments: > > 1. I'd keep the descriptions as short as possible, since there is no need > to recreate what the abstract of the RFC will say. Yeah -- I had intended to do this; what you're seeing was just a quick mockup at the moment. Point taken. > 2. Just as a style issue, I don't have a strong adherence to "adheres to". > Brings up an image of a fly trapped on fly-paper ;-). I'd replace it with > simply "follows" or something like that. Agreed. Changed. > Regarding which standards to document, there is no particular person who > knows the answer to this (although Roy Fielding would surely come > closest). You can start with the stuff here: > http://httpd.apache.org/library/ > and perhaps post a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] asking for more suggestions. I was going to use the library, and thanks for the other contacts. Andr� Malo said: > (1) I would prefer to link to http resources rather than ftp No problems. > (2) the double-<dd> is not so cool, I'm not sure; what about Taken onboard and changed. > (3) I'd put a space between RFC and # Done. > (4) RFC 2616 is not a draft standard ;-)) Unless I'm missing something, rfc-editor.org says it is... at least on the index page. Erik Abele said: > Andre already mentioned the HTTP RFC errata listing. Additionally, I'd > like to see the following link go in too: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.html. I'll add a links section. -- Jason Lingohr [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
