W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2004

httpRange-14 already decided by deployed practice (was RE: [Fwd: RE: "information resource"])

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:59:09 +0300
Message-ID: <1E4A0AC134884349A21955574A90A7A56471F1@trebe051.ntc.nokia.com>
To: <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> ext Norman Walsh
> Sent: 18 October, 2004 20:45
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: "information resource"]
> 
> 
> / Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> was heard to say:
> [...]
> | Some of us think that an HTTP "200 OK"
> | response on a GET or HEAD for some URI means it identifies an
> | information resource
> 
> Yeah, but some people don't think that. There is not consensus on
> whether or not http://example.com/dog must identify only an
> information resource. I see no evidence to suggest that any amount of
> discussion will ever achieve consensus on this point.
> 
> I suggest that we try to accept that fact.

+1 

(and that's putting it mildly ;-)


> | So from a process perspective, having Information Resource defined
> | turns httpRange-14 into pretty much a Yes or No question, 
> although I'm
> 
> I think httpRange-14 is a yes or no question no matter how you define
> (or even if you bother to define) information resource. The answer is:
> the community does not agree on what the answer is.

Well, I see the ultimate question at the core of httpRange-14 as
being whether the range of resources is constrained to a particular
subclass of resource, or to any resource whatsoever.

And if the community does not agree -- then the answer *has* to be
that it is *not* constrained to a particular subclass of resource.

IMO, the community has already *answered* the question, demonstrated
by the number of successfully deployed applications which do not
constrain the range of HTTP requests to "information resources" or any
other subclass of resource.

IMO, the TAG should simply document the fact that the community has
decided this issue, and close it.

Cheers,

Patrick


>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
> 
> -- 
> Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun 
> Microsystems, Inc.
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is 
> prohibited.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
> reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
> 
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 07:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:43 UTC