RE: (INTEGOK) rough consensus
Paul Leach (paulle@microsoft.com)
Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:04:22 -0800
>----------
>From: Roy T. Fielding[SMTP:fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU]
>Subject: Re: (INTEGOK) rough consensus
>
] I like all the suggested wording changes.
>
>>> Note: the net result of the above is that the digest is
>> computed on the content that would be sent over-the-wire, in
>>> network byte order, but prior to any transfer coding being
>>> applied.
>
>Why not just say that and leave out the rest? I think the note is far
>more effective (and more likely to always be accurate) then the
>paragraph
>above it.
How about switching: the note will be the definitive text, the paragraph
above it the explanation/motivational note?
I think the explanaority paragraph is useful to relate RFC 1864 to the
HTTP context; if everyone else thinks its redundant, I can be persuaded
to remove it.
Send me private opinions on the utility -- no need to clutter the list:
a one liner with "useful" or "not useful" will do.
Paul