W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Requirements for Any Theory of "Information Resource"

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:12:10 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTinL=_FJ=ZvSjGPrpCpDjda+MADC91T4Y9gsR+Hg@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> David Booth wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 14:36 -0500, David Booth wrote:
>>>
>>> I thought I would take this opportunity to provide some feedback on
>>> Jonathan's draft: Requirements for Any Theory of "Information Resource".
>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir-axioms/20110225
>>
>> . . .
>> One more comment:
>>
>> 12. BTW, I like your idea of talking about "authorized" representations
>> of an IR.  That's what specs like 2616 assume (or specify), but given
>> the amount of confusion that has been caused by scenarios where hardware
>> or software malfunctions, or a web site is cracked or mis-configured, I
>
> intermediaries like caches? man in the middle attacks? badly configured ISPs
> / network intermediaries which modify to add tracking code or ads?

Yes.

2616 does specify what it means for a cache to be correct - it's the
same as delivering only authorized responses.

Nasty intermediaries are not implementing the protocol. I think there
was a W3C publication last year about these things - I wanted to say
that they should be advised to use 203 responses only, but didn't want
to get involved... we just need to say "that's not HTTP".
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 02:12:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 1 March 2011 02:12:43 GMT