- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 13:41:06 +1100
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.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 UTC