W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 1998

Re: Comments (Part 1) on HTTP I-D Rev 05 (ADAMS01 point 41).

From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:31:58 -0800
Message-Id: <9811131931.AA26654@pachyderm.pa.dec.com>
To: "Adams, Glenn" <gadams@spyglass.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/230

> 41. Section 10.3.2, pg. 58, 1st para., states "The requested resource
> has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to
> this resource SHOULD be done using one of the returned URIs." This is
> an onerous requirement on UAs unless they happen to have link editing
> capabilities. Should be qualified to not apply to UAs without such
> capability; otherwise, no UA of this type will ever be unconditionally
> compliant. Alternatively, change this requirement to MAY.

Yes, I see the point, and this was clearly not our intent, as the
following sentence explicitly deals with the case of UA's with
link editing capability, where it recommends relinking.  I also
think that the SHOULD in the sentence about link editing capabilities
is incorrect; it is weasle worded with "where possible", and I don't
think it was originally intended it should be SHOULD.

So I think a proper replacement for the paragraph is.

 "The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and the 
  reference to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned URIs.  
  Clients with link editing capabilities ought to automatically re-link 
  references to the Request-URI to one or more of the new references returned 
  by the server, where possible. This response is cachable unless indicated 
			- Jim
Received on Friday, 13 November 1998 11:40:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:06 UTC