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

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...


Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 20:33:22 UTC