-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 146
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
RFC6265bis: Advise the reader which section to implement #2478
Conversation
@miketaylr PTAL |
d731fe6
to
b7afacf
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, just a few editorial comments / suggestions / questions.
@mikewest |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, much clearer - thanks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This advice makes sense to me, LGTM.
But I have a suggestion around structure that I'd appreciate you considering before landing it. WDYT?
@@ -460,6 +460,77 @@ Set-Cookie: lang=; Expires=Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT | |||
Cookie: SID=31d4d96e407aad42 | |||
~~~ | |||
|
|||
## Which Requirements to Implement |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Optional Structural Nit: This comes right after the "Examples" section, and right before two very long sections of requirements for servers on the one hand and user agents on the other. It might be helpful to provide that context here. "Hey, you're going to read two long sections in a minute. Based on who you are, you might want to pay more attention to this one."
Alternatively, I could imagine a note at the top of both the requirements section pointing off to this section as a subsection of "Implementation Considerations". That might be clearer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I reworked the opening paragraph, wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thanks!
Closes #2289
As mentioned in #2289, I've seen a few instances where an implementer chose the wrong section for their needs which caused compatibility issues down the line.
This PR adds a section that will (hopefully) grab the reader's attention and direct them to the correct section.