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

Re: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0907151317010.21863@egate.xpasc.com>

I repeat my objection to the inclusion of "for further information" and
ambiguous and I believe unspecified. I would be happy if the phrase is 
dropped or it could be expanded but I can't suggestion an explanation as I 
don't know what 'further information' would apply, what its syntax would 
be, etc.

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Larry Masinter wrote:
>> This conversation is filling my mailbox. Some general
>> observations:
>> ...
> Larry,
> thanks a LOT for this reply.
> My takeaway is that we (the HTTPbis WG) are willing to do minor word smithing 
> to clarify things, but that's it.
> In draft 07, we already replaced "resource owner" by "URI owner", as 
> suggested by Roy.
> In another mail 
> (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0044.html>), 
> Roy proposed another change:
>> That's because you happen to be reading it differently than
>> what I was thinking when I wrote it.  The sentence is a bit
>> ambiguous if you don't pay attention to what the second "that"
>> means.  If it is reordered to say
>>   A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the server does
>>   not have a transferable representation of the requested resource
>>   and is instead redirecting the client to some other resource
>>   for further information.
>> then I think the objection is handled without watering down
>> the purpose of using the status code on a GET.
> I'm happy to make this change if there are no objections, and it does make at 
> least a few people less unhappy.
> BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 20:20:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:50 UTC