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

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.

> ...

BR, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 12:55:50 UTC