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

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.

In case anyone missed it, I'm *indirectly* asking HTTPbis to either  
help, hinder, or stay out of the way of the TAG's resolution [1] of  
its httpRange-14 issue. Indirectly because HTTP and its WG shouldn't  
have any specific reason to care about it one way or the other, as it  
seems awfully applicationsy. But asking for 'resource' to be fixed in  
HTTP bears on httpRange-14 since (IMO) clarification is impossible  
without having some effect on httpRange-14.

I'm not speaking for the TAG.



Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 22:39:06 UTC