- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:10:12 +1000
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Jonathan, Is the solution to this as simple as s/is used/can be used/ in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-06#section-2.1.1 >? Cheers, On 06/02/2009, at 7:32 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote: > > > On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:54 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> Jonathan Rees wrote: >>> On Jan 30, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>>> I don't think this has been raised before. That being said, this >>>> area (Part 1) is work-in-progress, so now certainly is the right >>>> moment to raise it. >>> Have I raised it now, or do I need to do something else >>> procedurally? Since no one else has piped up to support or fight >>> this, and no issue number is assigned, I'm not sure where this >>> stands. >> >> That depends on the definition of "raised". And yes, if we want to >> make sure that it doesn't get lost it should be added to the issue >> tracker. >> >> To get this done it would help if you could propose a precise >> description of the problem, plus, optimally, a proposed change. > > I can do this. The precise description is that 'resource' is defined > in 2616 incompatibly with 3986, and subsequent text assumes the 2616 > definition. Given that no one has ventured an opinion on this, I > plan to propose minimal changes to the text, in at least three > locations, in the direction of making 2616bis take a hands-off > approach to the question of what happens when the URI does not > "identify" a "network data object or service". > > I may also propose text for 303 that allows for some of the new uses > it has found... > > Thanks > Jonathan > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 16 April 2009 01:10:52 UTC