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

Re: requested resource / entity / representation / variant again..

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:16:24 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8AB4E913-F79D-43F1-B0D5-784999C80E15@mnot.net>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
On 24/07/2009, at 8:57 AM, Henrik Nordstrom  
<henrik@henriknordstrom.net> wrote:

> fre 2009-07-24 klockan 08:34 +1000 skrev Mark Nottingham:
>> Regarding 'requested resource', would it be better if we used
>> 'targeted resource' consistently?
> I canĘt really comment on that before we have had a serious  
> terminology
> discussion as it's not at all helpful going around changing one term  
> at
> a time. But I think I prefer requested resource over targeted resource
> assuming it intends to mean the same thing (Request-URI).

Request-uri is now request-target; I suggested that term to reflect  
that, as well as avoid the resource vs respresentation confusion that  
"requested" brings about.

Regarding having a serious terminology discussion - of course it needs  
to be considered as a whole, but we have to start somewhere. We've had  
these issues on our list for quite some time and have only made stop  
and start progress so far; I'm hopeful that next week will be an  
opportunity to make more significant inroads.

> Related to this there also needs some explanatory text describing why
> operations operating on an URI as such like PUT/DELETE and content
> negotiation do not mix very well.

I think that depends on how #69 goes...
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 00:17:03 UTC

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