Changeset 1005

Timestamp:

14/09/10 13:25:45 (10 years ago)

Author:

julian.reschke@…

Message:

mark 'Implementations' sub section as 'to be removed before publication'

Location:

draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/latest

Files:

• draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp.html (modified) (2 diffs)
• draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp.xml (modified) (2 diffs)

draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp.html

@@ -497 +497 @@
                <li class="tocline1">C.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#alternatives.percent">Percent Encoding</a></li>
                <li class="tocline1">C.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#alternatives.sniff">Encoding Sniffing</a></li>
-               <li class="tocline1">C.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#alternatives.implementations">Implementations</a></li>
+               <li class="tocline1">C.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#alternatives.implementations">Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a></li>
             </ul>
          </li>
@@ -791 +791 @@
       </p>
       <p id="rfc.section.C.3.p.2">As with the approaches above, this is not interoperable and furthermore risks misinterpreting the actual value.</p>
-      <h2 id="rfc.section.C.4"><a href="#rfc.section.C.4">C.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="alternatives.implementations" href="#alternatives.implementations">Implementations</a></h2>
+      <h2 id="rfc.section.C.4"><a href="#rfc.section.C.4">C.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="alternatives.implementations" href="#alternatives.implementations">Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a></h2>
       <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.1">Unfortunately, as of September 2010, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231 and 5789, nor any of the alternate approaches
          discussed above was implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification recommends the approach defined in RFC 5987, which
          at least has the advantage of actually being specified properly.
       </p>
-      <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.2">The table below shows the implementation support for the various approaches: <span class="comment" id="impls">[<a href="#impls" class="smpl">impls</a>: Discuss: should we mention the implementation status of actual UAs in a RFC? Up to the IESG to decide...]</span> 
-      </p>
+      <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.2">The table below shows the implementation support for the various approaches:</p>
       <div id="rfc.table.u.1">
          <table class="tt full left" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">

draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp.xml

@@ -688 +688 @@
 </section>
 
-<section title="Implementations" anchor="alternatives.implementations">
+<section title="Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)" anchor="alternatives.implementations">
 <t>
   Unfortunately, as of September 2010, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231
@@ -698 +698 @@
 <t>
   The table below shows the implementation support for the various approaches:
-  <cref anchor="impls">Discuss: should we mention the implementation status
-  of actual UAs in a RFC? Up to the IESG to decide...</cref>  
 </t>
 <texttable align="left">