jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
5.4. <del> The "Pragma" header field allows backwards compatibility with HTTP/1.0 caches, so that clients can specify a "no-cache" request that they will understand (as </del> <ins> The "Pragma" header field was defined for HTTP/1.0 caches, so that clients could specify a "no-cache" request (as </ins> <del> was not defined until HTTP/1.1).  When the Cache-Control header field is also present and understood in a request, Pragma is ignored. </del> <ins> was not defined until HTTP/1.1). </ins> <del> In HTTP/1.0, Pragma was defined as an extensible field for implementation-specified directives for recipients.  This specification deprecates such extensions to improve interoperability. When the header field is not present in a request, caches MUST consider the no-cache request pragma-directive as having the same effect as if "Cache-Control: no-cache" were present (see cache-request-directive). When sending a no-cache request, a client ought to include both the pragma and cache-control directives, unless Cache-Control: no-cache is purposefully omitted to target other request directives at HTTP/1.1 or greater caches.  For example: will constrain HTTP/1.1 and greater caches to serve a response no older than 30 seconds, while precluding implementations that do not understand from serving a cached response. </del> <ins> However, support for Cache-Control is now widespread.  As a result, this specification deprecates Pragma. </ins> 5.5.
applicable "s-maxage" or "proxy-revalidate" cache-response-directive; see cache-response-directive). <del> A cache MUST NOT send stale responses unless it is disconnected (i.e., it cannot contact the origin server or otherwise find a forward path) or doing so is explicitly allowed (e.g., by the max- stale request directive; see cache-request-directive). </del> <ins> A cache MUST NOT send stale responses unless it is disconnected or doing so is explicitly allowed (e.g., by the max-stale request directive; see cache-request-directive). </ins> 4.3.
12.1. <del> Please update the "Message Headers" registry of "Permanent Message Header Field Names" at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/message- headers> with the header field names listed in the two tables of </del> <ins> Please update the "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field Registry" registry at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-headers> with the header field names listed in the two tables of </ins> header.fields. 12.2.
4.1.1. <del> HTTP header fields are registered within the "Message Headers" registry located at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/message- headers>, as defined by BCP90, with the protocol "http". </del> <ins> The "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field Registry" defines the namespace for HTTP header field names Any party can request registration of a HTTP header field.  See considerations.for.new.header.fields for considerations to take into account when creating a new HTTP header field. The "HTTP Header Field Name" registry is located at "https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-headers/".  Registration requests can be made by following the instructions located there or by sending an email to the "ietf-http-wg@ietf.org" mailing list. Header field names are registered on the advice of a Designated Expert (appointed by the IESG or their delegate).  Header fields with the status 'permanent' are Specification Required (using terminology from RFC8126). Registration requests consist of at least the following information: The Expert(s) can define additional fields to be collected in the registry, in consultation with the community. Standards-defined names have a status of "permanent".  Other names can also be registered as permanent, if the Expert(s) find that they are in use, in consultation with the community.  Other names should be registered as "provisional". Provisional entries can be removed by the Expert(s) if -- in consultation with the community -- the Expert(s) find that they are not in use.  The Experts can change a provisional entry's status to permanent at any time. Note that names can be registered by third parties (including the Expert(s)), if the Expert(s) determines that an unregistered name is widely deployed and not likely to be registered in a timely manner otherwise. </ins> 4.1.2.
13.4. <del> Please update the "Message Headers" registry of "Permanent Message Header Field Names" at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/message- headers> with the header field names listed in the table of field.names. </del> <ins> Please create a new registry as outlined in field.name.registry. After creating the registry, all entries in the Permanent and Provisional Message Header Registries with the protocol 'http' are to be moved to it, with the following changes applied: Please annotate the Permanent and Provisional Message Header registries to indicate that HTTP header field registrations have moved, with an appropriate link. After that is complete, please update the registry with the header field names listed in the table of field.names. </ins> 13.5.
8.1. <del> Please update the "Message Headers" registry of "Permanent Message Header Field Names" at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/message- headers> with the header field names listed in the table of </del> <ins> Please update the "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field Registry" registry at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-headers> with the header field names listed in the two tables of </ins> header.field.definitions. 8.2.
) response. <ins> If an HTTP/1.1 client receives data on a connection that doesn't have any outstanding requests, it MUST NOT consider them to be a response to a not-yet-issued request; it SHOULD close the connection, since message delimitation is now ambiguous, unless the data consists only of one or more CRLF (which can be discarded, as per message.parsing). </ins> 9.4. HTTP/1.1 defaults to the use of "
1.2. This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) <del> notation of RFC5234 with a list extension, defined in abnf.extension, that allows for compact definition of comma-separated lists using a '#' operator (similar to how the '*' operator indicates repetition). </del> <ins> notation of RFC5234, extended with the notation for case-sensitivity in strings defined in RFC7405. It also uses a list extension, defined in abnf.extension, that allows for compact definition of comma-separated lists using a '#' operator (similar to how the '*' operator indicates repetition). </ins> collected.abnf shows the collected grammar with all list operators expanded to standard ABNF notation.
representations of error or processing status, and potentially even the miscellaneous text strings that might appear within the protocol. <ins> For each of these header fields, a request that does not contain it implies that the user agent has no preference on that axis of negotiation.  If the header field is present in a request and none of the available representations for the response can be considered acceptable according to it, the origin server can either honor the header field by sending a response or disregard the header field by treating the response as if it is not subject to content negotiation for that request header field.  This does not imply, however, that the client will be able to use the representation. Sending these header fields makes it easier for a server to identify an individual by virtue of the user agent's request characteristics (fingerprinting). Each of these header fields defines a wildcard value (often, "*") to select unspecified values.  If no wildcard is present, all values not explicitly mentioned in the field are considered "not acceptable" to the client. In practice, using wildcards in content negotiation has limited practical value, because it is seldom useful to say, for example, "I prefer image/* more or less than (some other specific value)". Clients can explicitly request a response if a more preferred format is not available by sending Accept: */*;q=0, but they still need to be able to handle a different response, since the server is allowed to ignore their preference. </ins> 8.4.1. Many of the request header fields for
8.4.2. <del> The "Accept" header field can be used by user agents to specify response media types that are acceptable.  Accept header fields can be used to indicate that the request is specifically limited to a small set of desired types, as in the case of a request for an in- line image. </del> <ins> The "Accept" header field can be used by user agents to specify their preferences regarding response media types.  For example, Accept header fields can be used to indicate that the request is specifically limited to a small set of desired types, as in the case of a request for an in-line image. </ins> The asterisk "*" character is used to group media types into ranges, with "*/*" indicating all media types and "type/*" indicating all
is interpreted as "I prefer audio/basic, but send me any audio type if it is the best available after an 80% markdown in quality". <del> A request without any Accept header field implies that the user agent will accept any media type in response.  If the header field is present in a request and none of the available representations for the response have a media type that is listed as acceptable, the origin server can either honor the header field by sending a response or disregard the header field by treating the response as if it is not subject to content negotiation. </del> A more elaborate example is Verbally, this would be interpreted as "text/html and text/x-c are
8.4.3. The "Accept-Charset" header field can be sent by a user agent to <del> indicate what charsets are acceptable in textual response content. This field allows user agents capable of understanding more comprehensive or special-purpose charsets to signal that capability to an origin server that is capable of representing information in those charsets. </del> <ins> indicate its preferences for charsets in textual response content. For example, this field allows user agents capable of understanding more comprehensive or special-purpose charsets to signal that capability to an origin server that is capable of representing information in those charsets. </ins> Charset names are defined in charset.  A user agent MAY associate a quality value with each charset to indicate the user's relative
The special value "*", if present in the Accept-Charset field, matches every charset that is not mentioned elsewhere in the Accept- <del> Charset field.  If no "*" is present in an Accept-Charset field, then any charsets not explicitly mentioned in the field are considered "not acceptable" to the client. A request without any Accept-Charset header field implies that the user agent will accept any charset in response.  Most general-purpose user agents do not send Accept-Charset, unless specifically configured to do so, because a detailed list of supported charsets makes it easier for a server to identify an individual by virtue of the user agent's request characteristics (fingerprinting). If an Accept-Charset header field is present in a request and none of the available representations for the response has a charset that is listed as acceptable, the origin server can either honor the header field, by sending a response, or disregard the header field by treating the resource as if it is not subject to content negotiation. </del> <ins> Charset field. </ins> 8.4.4. The "Accept-Encoding" header field can be used by user agents to <del> indicate what response content-codings (content.codings) are acceptable in the response.  An "identity" token is used as a synonym for "no encoding" in order to communicate when no encoding is preferred. </del> <ins> indicate their preferences regarding response content-codings (content.codings).  An "identity" token is used as a synonym for "no encoding" in order to communicate when no encoding is preferred. </ins> Each codings value MAY be given an associated quality value representing the preference for that encoding, as defined in
would mean: "I prefer Danish, but will accept British English and other types of English". <del> A request without any Accept-Language header field implies that the user agent will accept any language in response.  If the header field is present in a request and none of the available representations for the response have a matching language tag, the origin server can either disregard the header field by treating the response as if it is not subject to content negotiation or honor the header field by sending a response.  However, the latter is not encouraged, as doing so can prevent users from accessing content that they might be able to use (with translation software, for example). </del> Note that some recipients treat the order in which language tags are listed as an indication of descending priority, particularly for tags that are assigned equal quality values (no value is the same as q=1).
sending a payload body on a DELETE request might cause some existing implementations to reject the request. <del> Responses to the DELETE method are not cacheable.  If a DELETE request passes through a cache that has one or more stored responses for the effective request URI, those stored responses will be invalidated (see invalidation). </del> <ins> Responses to the DELETE method are not cacheable.  If a successful DELETE request passes through a cache that has one or more stored responses for the effective request URI, those stored responses will be invalidated (see invalidation). </ins> 7.3.6.
registries to indicate that HTTP header field registrations have moved, with an appropriate link. <del> After that is complete, please update the registry with the header field names listed in the table of field.names. </del> <ins> After that is complete, please update the new registry with the header field names listed in the table of field.names. Finally, please update the "Content-MD5" entry in the new registry to have a status of 'obsoleted' with references to RFC2616 (for the definition of the header field) and RFC7231 (which removed the field definition from the updated specification). </ins> 13.5.
A client that generates an OPTIONS request containing a payload body MUST send a valid <del> header field describing the representation media type.  Although this specification does not define any use for such a payload, future extensions to HTTP might use the OPTIONS body to make more detailed queries about the target resource. </del> <ins> header field describing the representation media type.  Note that this specification does not define any use for such a payload. </ins> Responses to the OPTIONS method are not cacheable.
and for n >= 1 and m > 1: <del> For compatibility with legacy list rules, a recipient MUST parse and ignore a reasonable number of empty list elements: enough to handle common mistakes by senders that merge values, but not so much that they could be used as a denial-of-service mechanism.  In other words, a recipient MUST accept lists that satisfy the following syntax: </del> <ins> Empty elements do not contribute to the count of elements present.  A recipient MUST parse and ignore a reasonable number of empty list elements: enough to handle common mistakes by senders that merge values, but not so much that they could be used as a denial-of- service mechanism.  In other words, a recipient MUST accept lists that satisfy the following syntax: Note that because of the potential presence of empty list elements, the RFC 5234 ABNF cannot enforce the cardinality of list elements, and consequently all cases are mapped is if there was no cardinality specified. </ins> <del> Empty elements do not contribute to the count of elements present. </del> For example, given these ABNF productions: Then the following are valid values for example-list (not including
3.1. A response message is considered complete when all of the octets <del> indicated by the message framing (Messaging) are received prior to the connection being closed.  If the request method is GET, the response status code is </del> <ins> indicated by its framing are available.  Note that this includes a message that is ended by the connection's close (see Messaging). Although caches are encouraged to consider such a response incomplete when the connection termination was irregular, that is not always possible to detect; therefore, servers wishing to avoid caching of partial responses due to connection termination will need to use explicit framing. If the request method is GET, the response status code is </ins> , and the entire response header section has been received, a cache MAY store an incomplete response message body if the cache entry is
the request will have the same intended effect, even if the original request succeeded, though the response might differ. <ins> A client SHOULD NOT automatically retry a request with a non- idempotent method unless it has some means to know that the request semantics are actually idempotent, regardless of the method, or some means to detect that the original request was never applied. For example, a user agent that knows (through design or configuration) that a POST request to a given resource is safe can repeat that request automatically.  Likewise, a user agent designed specifically to operate on a version control repository might be able to recover from partial failure conditions by checking the target resource revision(s) after a failed connection, reverting or fixing any changes that were partially applied, and then automatically retrying the requests that failed. Some clients use weaker signals to initiate automatic retries.  For example, when a POST request is sent, but the underlying transport connection is closed before any part of the response is received. Although this is commonly implemented, it is not recommended. Proxies MUST NOT automatically retry non-idempotent requests. Clients SHOULD NOT automatically retry a failed automatic retry. </ins> 7.2.3. Request methods can be defined as "
9.5.20. <del> The 422 (Unprocessable Entity) status code indicates that the server understands the content type of the request entity (hence a </del> <ins> The 422 (Unprocessable Payload) status code indicates that the server understands the content type of the request payload (hence a </ins> <del> status code is inappropriate), and the syntax of the request entity is correct but was unable to process the contained instructions.  For example, this error condition may occur if an XML request body </del> <ins> status code is inappropriate), and the syntax of the request payload is correct, but was unable to process the contained instructions. For example, this status code can be sent if an XML request payload </ins> contains well-formed (i.e., syntactically correct), but semantically <del> erroneous, XML instructions. </del> <ins> erroneous XML instructions. </ins> 9.5.21.
the request will have the same intended effect, even if the original request succeeded, though the response might differ. <ins> A user agent MUST NOT automatically retry a request with a non- idempotent method unless it has some means to know that the request semantics are actually idempotent, regardless of the method, or some means to detect that the original request was never applied.  For example, a user agent that knows (through design or configuration) that a POST request to a given resource is safe can repeat that request automatically.  Likewise, a user agent designed specifically to operate on a version control repository might be able to recover from partial failure conditions by checking the target resource revision(s) after a failed connection, reverting or fixing any changes that were partially applied, and then automatically retrying the requests that failed. A proxy MUST NOT automatically retry non-idempotent requests. A client SHOULD NOT automatically retry a failed automatic retry. </ins> 7.2.3. Request methods can be defined as "
7.2.3. <del> Request methods can be defined as " " to indicate that responses to them are allowed to be stored for future reuse; for specific requirements see Caching.  In general, safe methods that do not depend on a current or authoritative response are defined as cacheable; this specification defines GET, HEAD, and POST as cacheable, although the overwhelming majority of cache implementations only support GET and HEAD. </del> <ins> For a cache to store and use a response, the associated method needs to explicitly allow caching, and detail under what conditions a response can be used to satisfy subsequent requests; a method definition which does not do so cannot be cached.  For additional requirements see Caching. This specification defines caching semantics for GET, HEAD, and POST, although the overwhelming majority of cache implementations only support GET and HEAD. </ins> 7.3.
The response payload, if any, might also describe the communication options in a machine or human-readable representation.  A standard format for such a representation is not defined by this <del> specification, but might be defined by future extensions to HTTP.  A server MUST generate a field with a value of "0" if no payload body is to be sent in the response. </del> <ins> specification, but might be defined by future extensions to HTTP. </ins> A client MAY send a
explicit expiration time is present in the stored response.  Because of the requirements in response.cacheability, this means that, effectively, heuristics can only be used on responses without <del> explicit freshness whose status codes are defined as cacheable by default (see overview.of.status.codes), and those responses without </del> <ins> explicit freshness whose status codes are defined as " " (e.g., see overview.of.status.codes), and those responses without </ins> explicit freshness that have been marked as explicitly cacheable (e.g., with a "public" response directive). <ins> Note that in previous specifications heuristically cacheable response status codes were called "cacheable by default." </ins> If the response has a header field (header.last-modified), caches are encouraged to use a