- From: Paul Burchard <burchard@cs.princeton.edu>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jun 96 18:42:38 -0400
- To: jg@w3.org
- Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, fielding@ics.uci.edu
> 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 illegal). 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 me. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Burchard <burchard@cs.princeton.edu> ``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...'' --------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 2 June 1996 15:45:35 UTC