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

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 15:12:26 +0200

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> On 17/04/2009, at 4:53 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> +1 to just removing the language around C-L; DIGIT is unambiguous.
>>
>> +1.
> 
> Sounds like you have enough to go on, then (this is an editorial issue).
> 
> Cheers,
> ...

Apologies for keeping this one open.

I previously agreed that the grammar is precise enough, and that we do 
not need to say "decimal" in the prose, and thus can simplify the 
language around Content-Length.

However, I also like consistency :-)

We currently have more place where we say "decimal"; should I simplify 
those as well?

Max-Forwards, Retry-After:

p2-semantics.xml:   The Max-Forwards value is a decimal integer 
indicating the remaining
p2-semantics.xml:   of seconds (in decimal) after the time of the response.
p2-semantics.xml:   Time spans are non-negative decimal integers, 
representing time in

Content-Range, Range:

p5-range.xml:   the selected resource as a decimal number. A response 
with status code 206 (Partial
p5-range.xml:   positions specified are inclusive. Byte offsets are 
decimal and start at zero.
p5-range.xml:   entity-body, of a length given by the decimal 
suffix-length value. (That is,

Age:

p6-cache.xml:  Age field-values are non-negative decimal integers, 
representing time in seconds.

BR, Julian

---

From: "Brian Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 14:21:38 +0000

Julian Reschke wrote:
> We currently have more places where we say "decimal"; should I simplify
> those as well?

Yes.

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 09:53:16 -0700 (PDT)

Yes ... As I think I noted previously ... one note in the front section to 
the effect that all values are decimal unless explicitly noted otherwise 
and remove all other 'decimal' qualifiers.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 19:22:37 +0200

David Morris wrote:
> 
> Yes ... As I think I noted previously ... one note in the front section 
> to the effect that all values are decimal unless explicitly noted 
> otherwise and remove all other 'decimal' qualifiers.

I even think that hat note is not needed at all.

BR, Julian

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 09:30:15 +1000

It gives me a bit of pause, but I think that's OK (as long as they're  
all clearly defined as DIGITs).

On 01/05/2009, at 11:12 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> I previously agreed that the grammar is precise enough, and that we  
> do not need to say "decimal" in the prose, and thus can simplify the  
> We currently have more place where we say "decimal"; should I  
> simplify those as well?
>
> p5-range.xml:   the selected resource as a decimal number. A  
> response with status code 206 (Partial
> p5-range.xml:   entity-body, of a length given by the decimal suffix- 
> length value. (That is,
>
> Age:
>

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

---

From: "Brian Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 19:38:36 -0500

...
...

Yes. Let the ABNF define the notation and let the prose focus on the
semantics. The grammar isn't good enough unless a 100%-compliant recognizer
can be automatically generated from it. Further, being able to understand
the ABNF is a precondition for understanding the spec. Any description of
the syntax in the prose is superfluous at best, and misleading at worst.

- Brian

---

From: "Brian Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 19:39:53 -0500

...
...

Yes. Let the ABNF define the notation and let the prose focus on the
semantics. The grammar isn't good enough unless a 100%-compliant recognizer
can be automatically generated from it. Being able to understand the ABNF is
a precondition for understanding the spec. Consequently, any description of
the syntax in the prose is superfluous at best, and misleading at worst.

- Brian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 11:49:11 +0200

> all clearly defined as DIGITs).

They are.

Proposed patch: 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/161/161.diff>.

BR, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 08:50:42 +0200

> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/161/161.diff>. 

I have heard no complaints so far; should I make this change?

BR, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 09:14:37 +0200

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> No one has complained about it being editorial, so it's your 
> (collective, theoretically) decision.
> 
> Of course, they may complain *after* it's in, but that's how it goes.
> ...

Indeed.

Change applied with 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/576>.

BR, Julian

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 16:59:47 +1000

Cheers,

On 06/05/2009, at 4:50 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> It gives me a bit of pause, but I think that's OK (as long as  
>>> they're all clearly defined as DIGITs).
>>> ...
>> They are.
>> Proposed patch: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/161/161.diff 
>> >.
>