Subject: Re: Base for first-byte-pos, last-byte-pos, suffix-length

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:00:12 +1000

#161 (editorial)
   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/161

On 19/12/2008, at 6:26 AM, Jeff Walden wrote:

>
> RFC2616 doesn't specify the base of the numbers used in byte range  
> requests; it should note that each is a decimal number akin to how  
> 4.4 number 3 does so for Content-Length.
>
> Jeff
>

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:44:43 +0200

Hi,

ticket 161 says:

"Add a note at the beginning that all numbers not other wise declared 
are in base 10 decimal."

I do not believe this would have helped in this case, the original 
problem was with not understanding Javascript number parsing, not with 
understanding the HTTP spec.

Also, should this note go into all seven parts?

BR, Julian

Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> requests; it should note that each is a decimal number akin to how 4.4 
>> number 3 does so for Content-Length.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
> 
> 
> --

---

From: "Brian Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:33:14 -0500

> "Add a note at the beginning that all numbers not other wise declared 

Anything specified as DIGIT* is unambiguously a sequence of decimal digits
by the definition of DIGIT ("decimal 0-9") from part 1. The note about
Content-Length should be removed since that is what is causing confusion.

> Also, should this note go into all seven parts?

Every part that defines syntax has to reference part 1, so having the
definition in only part 1 makes sense.

- Brian

---

From: "Brian Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:33:13 +0000

- Brian

---

From: "Brian Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:06:45 +0000

> Also, should this note go into all seven parts?

Every part that defines syntax has to reference part 1 where DIGIT is
defined, so having the definition in part 1 only makes sense.

- Brian

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:14:03 +1000

+1 to just removing the language around C-L; DIGIT is unambiguous.

Julian, not sure where JS comes into it - ref?

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:53:32 +0200

> +1 to just removing the language around C-L; DIGIT is unambiguous.

+1.

> Julian, not sure where JS comes into it - ref?

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008OctDec/0421.html>

The problem was feeding the value into the JavaScript's parseInt() (not 
specifying the base), and the actual value having a leading zero.

I'd argue this is a documentation/education problem related to 
JavaScript, not HTTP.

BR, Julian

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 16:05:38 +1000

>> +1 to just removing the language around C-L; DIGIT is unambiguous.

Sounds like you have enough to go on, then (this is an editorial issue).

Cheers,