W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2009

Definition of 'resource' not consistent with RFC 3986

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:54:27 -0500
Message-Id: <39A95AF3-02C0-4483-A90A-8D8C0761F99F@creativecommons.org>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

I looked here:


and found that the definition of 'resource' is unchanged since RFC  
2616, and does not even agree with RFC 2396.  Let's please do one of  
the following:

(a) replace the definition with one that references RFC 3986, and  
assure ourselves that all the rest of the RFC is still correct after  
having made this change (which should be easy if one thinks this does  
not affect the protocol), or

(b) introduce a new term to replace 'resource' with the definition  
unchanged, so that there is no chance of collision or confusion with  
the normative sense of 'resource', and then use that term instead of  
'resource' throughout the new RFC.

My guess is that no one will want to choose (b), but I offer it as an  
option because it's obviously semantics-preserving.

The issue is that RFC 2396 and 3986 clearly allow 'resources' to be  
'abstract,' while figuring out where 2616 stands on this, or whether  
it matters to the protocol, is nearly impossible.

It may be necessary to go over what in the original are sections 3.3.2  
and 9.3 in order to fix this properly.

Apologies if this has been raised before and decided, but I'm new to  
this place.

Jonathan Rees
Creative Commons / Science Commons
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 15:55:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:48 UTC