Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> Eric Scheid schrieb:
>> On 8/7/06 9:47 AM, "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Server implementations
>>> MAY attempt to comply with the request.
>>
>> This sounds and feels negative to me, as if we don't really believe that
>> PaceSlugHeader should really be supported. May I suggest instead:
>>
>> "Server implementations MAY ignore the Slug header."
>
> Again, that's something that doesn't require RFC2119 terminology. If the
> purpose of the header is clearly stated, no more conformance statements
> are needed.
>
In this case, yes rfc2119 terminology is helpful. The Slug header is a
component of the POST request, servers need to know whether or not it is
ok to ignore it.
> [snip]
> Well, Eric got it wrong (it's not encoded using RFC2047), which kind of
> shows that just saying "use RFC2047" isn't sufficient. Part of the
> problem here is that the proposal should clearly state what level of
> encoding it applies to (if this is about specifying parts of URI
> segments, URI syntax is sufficient; and RFC2047 doesn't even need to be
> mentioned).
>
I don't think I've ever managed to get an RFC2047 encoding correct so it
would be great if you could provide a decent example that I could
incorporate into the pace. Either that, or propose some alternate text
that you think would be better.
- James
