Re: 12, 14.43: resource arguments and conneg

> I'm going to rule out of order this terminology discussion.

But it's not a terminology discussion any more -- I'm saying the  
spec is perfectly clear, but wrong.

> The spec, as written, seems understandable to most
> who've been reading it.

The evidence on this list is otherwise -- every post in this thread  
has attempted to read a different set of assumed variations into  
the spec (not too surprising, since the spec makes all of them  

I've proposed some specific text (not a global change) to fix the  
problem and draw what I think is a simple but natural dividing line.  
 If you can tell me why it's bogus, I'll slink back to my corner.

P.S.  I'm not just trying to be annoying -- my underlying concern  
continues to be proper attention for the POST method.  The current  
Vary spec seems unacceptably (if unintentionally) POST-hostile to  

Paul Burchard	<>
``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''

Received on Sunday, 2 June 1996 15:45:35 UTC