> 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 illegal). 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 me. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:01 EDT