Ignore:
Timestamp:
Sep 14, 2010, 6:25:45 AM (9 years ago)
Author:
julian.reschke@…
Message:

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

File:
1 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp.html

    r1004 r1005  
    497497               <li class="tocline1">C.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#alternatives.percent">Percent Encoding</a></li>
    498498               <li class="tocline1">C.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#alternatives.sniff">Encoding Sniffing</a></li>
    499                <li class="tocline1">C.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#alternatives.implementations">Implementations</a></li>
     499               <li class="tocline1">C.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#alternatives.implementations">Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a></li>
    500500            </ul>
    501501         </li>
     
    791791      </p>
    792792      <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>
    793       <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>
     793      <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>
    794794      <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
    795795         discussed above was implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification recommends the approach defined in RFC 5987, which
    796796         at least has the advantage of actually being specified properly.
    797797      </p>
    798       <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>
    799       </p>
     798      <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.2">The table below shows the implementation support for the various approaches:</p>
    800799      <div id="rfc.table.u.1">
    801800         <table class="tt full left" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.