Changeset 1520 for draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html

Timestamp:

30/01/12 03:09:15 (10 years ago)

Author:

fielding@…

Message:

Remove conditional compliance. Switch from compliance to conformance.

File:

• draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html (modified) (2 diffs)

draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html

@@ -1408 +1408 @@
          to a specific resource. Since a server's communication options typically depend on the resource, the "*" request is only useful
          as a "ping" or "no-op" type of method; it does nothing beyond allowing the client to test the capabilities of the server.
-         For example, this can be used to test a proxy for HTTP/1.1 compliance (or lack thereof).
+         For example, this can be used to test a proxy for HTTP/1.1 conformance (or lack thereof).
       </p>
       <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.5">If the request-target is not an asterisk, the OPTIONS request applies only to the options that are available when communicating
@@ -1784 +1784 @@
             (<a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>, <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-10.3.4">Section 10.3.4</a>). As user agents did not change their behavior to maintain backwards compatibility, the first revision of HTTP/1.1 added
             yet another status code, 307 (Temporary Redirect), for which the backwards compatibility problems did not apply (<a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>, <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-10.3.8">Section 10.3.8</a>). Over 10 years later, most user agents still do method rewriting for status codes 301 and 302, therefore this specification
-            makes that behavior compliant in case the original request was POST.
+            makes that behavior conformant in case the original request was POST.
          </p> 
       </div>