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

Re: WGLC #349: "strength"

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 10:31:11 +0200
Message-ID: <4FCDC3CF.4050102@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
CC: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
On 2012-06-04 07:54, David Morris wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> I don't see a reason to call what is on the wire anything different than
> what is provided by the user. It is encoded according to the rules of
> the authentication method. There is no clarity that I can divine with
> the additional complexity.

Change applied with 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1669>.

We can discuss terminology, but this should happen in a separate thread.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 08:38:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 June 2012 08:38:38 GMT