Comments on draft 1x of the Guidelines

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Comments on draft 1x of the Guidelines

Francois Daoust
Hi,

Thanks for the new draft, Jo!

I do not have any comment on the changes themselves.
I just wanted to reactivate the comments I sent to the list last
December [1].

These comments are made while reading the spec from a test suite (one
could perhaps say "algorithmic") perspective, to create conformance
tests out of it. Here are the comments:


Normative statement in an example
-----
In 4.1.5.5 [2], the "For example" statement contains a normative
statement. It is correct but it seems awkward to find a normative
statement in the middle of an example. I think we should make the
example informative.


Duplicate guideline in 4.1.6 and 4.1.6.1
-----
In 4.1.6 [3], the normative bullet point:
[[ proxies MUST include a Via HTTP header field]]
is repeated in 4.1.6.1.

No need to repeat the same guideline twice.


"Splitted" guideline between 4.1.5 and 4.1.5.5
-----
My initial comment was saying that the guidelines on reconstructing the
original User Agent originated header fields was a duplicate of 4.1.5.5.
Eduardo pointed out that it is not entirely true. I agree.
I think we should still re-write the statement to action the proxies
instead of using a passive form. In other words, I suggest something of
the form: "Proxies must copy verbatim the values of the original User
Agent originated header fields in the corresponding X-Device header
field values", possibly completed with the rationale: "to make it
possible for the server to reconstruct the initial values", and also
possibly moved to 4.1.5.5 as these two guidelines are highly related.


Could we discuss these points next week?

Francois.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Dec/0004.html
[2]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125#sec-original-headers
[3]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125#sec-additional-headers
[4]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125#sec-altering-header-values

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Comments on draft 1x of the Guidelines

Jo Rabin
Thanks for your learned comments, Francois!

It would indeed help to have group resolutions so they can be applied.

Yes, let's discuss this on Tuesday.

Jo

On 29/01/2010 16:19, Francois Daoust wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the new draft, Jo!
>
> I do not have any comment on the changes themselves.
> I just wanted to reactivate the comments I sent to the list last
> December [1].
>
> These comments are made while reading the spec from a test suite (one
> could perhaps say "algorithmic") perspective, to create conformance
> tests out of it. Here are the comments:
>
>
> Normative statement in an example
> -----
> In 4.1.5.5 [2], the "For example" statement contains a normative
> statement. It is correct but it seems awkward to find a normative
> statement in the middle of an example. I think we should make the
> example informative.
>
>
> Duplicate guideline in 4.1.6 and 4.1.6.1
> -----
> In 4.1.6 [3], the normative bullet point:
> [[ proxies MUST include a Via HTTP header field]]
> is repeated in 4.1.6.1.
>
> No need to repeat the same guideline twice.
>
>
> "Splitted" guideline between 4.1.5 and 4.1.5.5
> -----
> My initial comment was saying that the guidelines on reconstructing the
> original User Agent originated header fields was a duplicate of 4.1.5.5.
> Eduardo pointed out that it is not entirely true. I agree.
> I think we should still re-write the statement to action the proxies
> instead of using a passive form. In other words, I suggest something of
> the form: "Proxies must copy verbatim the values of the original User
> Agent originated header fields in the corresponding X-Device header
> field values", possibly completed with the rationale: "to make it
> possible for the server to reconstruct the initial values", and also
> possibly moved to 4.1.5.5 as these two guidelines are highly related.
>
>
> Could we discuss these points next week?
>
> Francois.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Dec/0004.html
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125#sec-original-headers 
>
> [3]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125#sec-additional-headers 
>
> [4]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/100125#sec-altering-header-values 
>
>