W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: 12, 14.43: resource arguments and conneg

From: Paul Burchard <burchard@cs.princeton.edu>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 96 18:42:38 -0400
Message-Id: <9606022242.AA22049@cs>
To: jg@w3.org
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, fielding@ics.uci.edu
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/710
> I'm going to rule out of order this terminology discussion.

But it's not a terminology discussion any more -- I'm saying the  
spec is perfectly clear, but wrong.

> The spec, as written, seems understandable to most
> who've been reading it.

The evidence on this list is otherwise -- every post in this thread  
has attempted to read a different set of assumed variations into  
the spec (not too surprising, since the spec makes all of them  

I've proposed some specific text (not a global change) to fix the  
problem and draw what I think is a simple but natural dividing line.  
 If you can tell me why it's bogus, I'll slink back to my corner.

P.S.  I'm not just trying to be annoying -- my underlying concern  
continues to be proper attention for the POST method.  The current  
Vary spec seems unacceptably (if unintentionally) POST-hostile to  

Paul Burchard	<burchard@cs.princeton.edu>
``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''
Received on Sunday, 2 June 1996 15:45:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC