Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update references to HTTP. #518

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 12, 2023
Merged

Update references to HTTP. #518

merged 2 commits into from
Oct 12, 2023

Conversation

markafoltz
Copy link
Contributor

@markafoltz markafoltz commented Oct 9, 2023

RFC 9110 (HTTP Semantics) has obsoleted the RFC for HTTP 1.1.

Update term references to point to RFC 9110.


Preview | Diff

@markafoltz
Copy link
Contributor Author

@tidoust : I wonder if these terms should go into the section at the end under "Terms Defined by Reference"?

@tidoust
Copy link
Member

tidoust commented Oct 10, 2023

These terms were locally re-defined because ReSpec did not have good support for cross-referencing sections in other specs that need to be interpreted as actual terms. ReSpec now has better support for that. Two options:

  1. Keep a local definition.
<p>The term <dfn data-cite="rfc9110#rfc.section.12.5.4">Accept-Language</dfn>
is used as defined in EcmaScript. [[!ECMASCRIPT]].</p>
<p>I can then reference the term directly with <a>Accept-Language</a>.</p>
  1. Only use references:
<p>The term can be referenced directly through
<a data-cite="rfc9110#rfc.section.12.5.4">Accept-Language</a>.</p>
<p>But all occurrences need to have the same data-cite attribute,
as in <a data-cite="rfc9110#rfc.section.12.5.4">Accept-Language</a>.
<a>Accept-Language</a> won't work in particular.</p>

Both options will correctly put the term in the list of terms defined by reference. I personally prefer the second option that avoids creating an otherwise useless local definition, but it requires using the data-cite attribute in all references to the term.

The same approach would work with most of the remaining terms in the Terminology section. Do you want me to update this pull request to apply the second option and extend it to other terms as well?

@markafoltz
Copy link
Contributor Author

I actually prefer the first version; the second version creates duplicate cross references that will be hard to update if needed.

I can update this PR to use local definitions for the HTTP terms, and followup with another PR to update remaining terms.

@markafoltz
Copy link
Contributor Author

New commit should reflect your suggestion, PTAL @tidoust

@markafoltz markafoltz merged commit 2ef78f7 into main Oct 12, 2023
2 checks passed
@markafoltz markafoltz deleted the issue-517-http branch October 12, 2023 16:58
github-actions bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 12, 2023
SHA: 2ef78f7
Reason: push, by mfoltzgoogle

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants