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

Re: AWWSW Telecon Tuesday 2011-10-25

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:15:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CACHXnaqS6Vuv566K+meJdnEP_qPkqHOHsbOwt=b3cyv2j_MbhA@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> I trust your judgement and will +1 whatever you think is best.

Often I don't discover what I think until it comes out of my mouth.
That's why I find telcons and meetings helpful.

> The documents produced are very good and in my mind, nice and clear. My only
> concern is with being GET 200 specific, so I'd be happy to have a final
> drive through to the end of the year to try to make it method, and
> potentially protocol, agnostic advise. If anybody else is up for it.

Well I don't consider "retrieval" to be tied to GET 200 or even to
HTTP, and I have recently been always generalizing from GET/200 to
retrieval (a word used in RFC 3986).

But your point is well taken and I haven't thought about it enough.
E.g. we have the analogous situation with using mailto: URIs to
'identify' people, which you're not supposed to do but which someone
might be inclined to do. And I have been steadily worried about POST
in relation to HR14a.

Best
Jonathan

> Best,
>
> Nathan
>
> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>
>> Quorum is 3.
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
>> Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:34 PM
>> Subject: AWWSW Telecon Tuesday 2011-09-27
>> To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
>>
>> Agenda:
>> We need to just declare victory and shut the group down.
>> It's clear that given the low level of interest we're not going to
>> solve any more problems so let's just figure out what to report to the
>> TAG.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 22 October 2011 01:15:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 22 October 2011 01:15:38 GMT