W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Comments on Section 6.1

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 13:41:06 +1100
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FB6BDDEC-04A2-44A8-86B5-93F4506B2C61@mnot.net>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Makse sense to me.


On 09/11/2010, at 9:10 AM, David Booth wrote:

> On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 16:56 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 06.11.2010 20:15, David Booth wrote:
>>> Comments on Section 6.1:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-12#section-6.1
>>> 
>>> 1. The first sentence says: "It is sometimes necessary to determine an
>>> identifier for the resource associated with a representation".  But
>>> rules 1-3 only say what *resource* is associated with the
>>> representation, rather than saying what the *identifier* is.
>> 
>> Actually, all points talk primarily about resources, some of which may 
>> not have a URI (last rule).
>> 
>> We could change the first sentence to
>> 
>> "It is sometimes necessary to determine the resource associated with a 
>> representation."
>> 
>> Would that help?
> 
> Actually, my point was intended the other way around: it would be
> helpful if rules 1-3 said what URI the resource associated with the
> representation has.
> 
> thanks
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
> http://dbooth.org/
> 
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 02:41:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:33 GMT