- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:59:56 +1100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I haven't seen any response to this, so we'll proceed and see how things go. On 28/02/2008, at 3:58 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > There's been a lot of discussion on i69, and while we've made some > progress, it may be to complex to solve as one issue. > > The threads that I see being productive to work on are (roughly in > order?): > > 1) Clarify entity / representation / variant terminology (possibly > ditching at least one) [new issue] <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/109> > 2) Remove 'requested variant' terminology from sections that don't > really need it (possibly as part of a rewrite). [new issue, or just > part of i69] > > 3) Clarify "requested variant" or define an new term for the > remaining uses. [what is currently i69] > > 4) Clarify what a response carries WRT representations / entities, > taking into account status codes, Content-Location, etc. [new issue] <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/110> > 5) Define what the metadata (e.g., ETag) in a response is associated > with, when a) it has a Content-Location, or b) isn't associated with > an identified resource (as per #2) [what is currently i22] -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 05:02:20 UTC