- From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:31:58 -0800
- To: "Adams, Glenn" <gadams@spyglass.com>
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> > 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 otherwise." - Jim
Received on Friday, 13 November 1998 11:40:13 UTC