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

RE: PROPOSAL - i109: Clarify entity / representation / variant terminology

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:05:47 -0600
To: "'Jonathan Rees'" <jar@creativecommons.org>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006901c988a7$127dcc80$37796580$@org>

Jonathan Rees wrote:
> I prefer 'entity', though, as it is more neutral and doesn't lead to
> this confusion. Am I an outlier, or could anyone else make the same
> mistake? Maybe there should be an explanation "representation of what"?

I don't see how it makes sense to replace "entity" with "representation"
given that important terms like "ETag" (entity tag) and "entity-header
field" are already well-defined in RFC 2616, and they well understood by
everybody implementing HTTP.

Is HTTPbis actually ever going to get published? Is there a new schedule? It
looks like it is going to be at least a year late and there is very little
progress being made. Perhaps the issue list should be cut down to the bare
minimum needed to resolve known interoperable issues. If that is done then I
think issues like i109 are should be first on the chopping block, since its
resolution will not improve interoperability.

- Brian
Received on Friday, 6 February 2009 22:06:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:01 GMT