W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: FYI: LINK and UNLINK

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:12:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7RbcTL7kUtQTAKmrj_T+ivmDf1Hr8VOemQJnQG7fNRw=CXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Excellent feedback. Thank you. Will incorporate it.
On Nov 5, 2013 5:09 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2013-09-23 21:17, James M Snell wrote:
>
>> Just a general FYI... I have submitted iteration -04 of the
>> LINK/UNLINK draft with a few minor editorial fixes... and, I have
>> formally requested Last Call status as an Independent Submission on
>> the Standards Track.
>>
>>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-link-method-04
>>
>
> Hi James,
>
> some feedback:
>
> - you may want to talk about what kind of processing of the link target
> happens, such as: is the server allowed or even required to check the
> target's existence (thus can LINK create "dangling" links?) If it does, an
> example would help (status code etc)
>
> - clarify whether an anchor parameter should either be ignored or be an
> error
>
> - you and I know that success could be 200 or 204, but if you don't have
> it at least in the examples, at least some people will be confused (and
> argue whether it should be 201 :-)
>
> - is it an error to try to remove a link that doesn't exist? What if I try
> to UNLINK one existing and one non-existing one?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2013 01:13:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:19 UTC