Re: Definition of 'resource' not consistent with RFC 3986

Jonathan Rees wrote:
> I looked here:

You meant to say: 

> ...
> and found that the definition of 'resource' is unchanged since RFC 2616, 
> and does not even agree with RFC 2396.  Let's please do one of the 
> following:
> (a) replace the definition with one that references RFC 3986, and assure 
> ourselves that all the rest of the RFC is still correct after having 
> made this change (which should be easy if one thinks this does not 
> affect the protocol), or
> (b) introduce a new term to replace 'resource' with the definition 
> unchanged, so that there is no chance of collision or confusion with the 
> normative sense of 'resource', and then use that term instead of 
> 'resource' throughout the new RFC.
> My guess is that no one will want to choose (b), but I offer it as an 
> option because it's obviously semantics-preserving.
> The issue is that RFC 2396 and 3986 clearly allow 'resources' to be 
> 'abstract,' while figuring out where 2616 stands on this, or whether it 
> matters to the protocol, is nearly impossible.
> It may be necessary to go over what in the original are sections 3.3.2 
> and 9.3 in order to fix this properly.

3.2.2 (http URL) and 9.3 (GET)?

> Apologies if this has been raised before and decided, but I'm new to 
> this place.
> ...

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.

BR, Julian

Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 16:21:46 UTC