W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: WGLC #349: "strength"

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:58:23 +1000
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D14EA701-3F2E-46D0-92D8-D489FC8BDAD9@mnot.net>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>

On 04/06/2012, at 10:57 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> * Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> On 02/06/2012, at 8:30 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> -1; if we change the terms we should do so consistently.
>> 
>> I thought "details" captured a certain vagueness that would help in this particular case. YMMV.
> 
> I agree with Julian in that if we want to consider changing the termino-
> logy, we should do that in a dedicated thread rather than arguing about
> the terms in the particular example, short of a rationale why this par-
> ticular instance is exceptional. I don't think, in any case, "details"
> would be a good replacement.

See my subsequent message; my understanding was that this is a special case, because it's not talking about what's happening on the wire.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 00:58:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 4 June 2012 00:58:59 GMT