- From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:05:47 -0600
- To: "'Jonathan Rees'" <jar@creativecommons.org>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Jonathan Rees wrote: > I prefer 'entity', though, as it is more neutral and doesn't lead to > this confusion. Am I an outlier, or could anyone else make the same > mistake? Maybe there should be an explanation "representation of what"? I don't see how it makes sense to replace "entity" with "representation" given that important terms like "ETag" (entity tag) and "entity-header field" are already well-defined in RFC 2616, and they well understood by everybody implementing HTTP. Is HTTPbis actually ever going to get published? Is there a new schedule? It looks like it is going to be at least a year late and there is very little progress being made. Perhaps the issue list should be cut down to the bare minimum needed to resolve known interoperable issues. If that is done then I think issues like i109 are should be first on the chopping block, since its resolution will not improve interoperability. - Brian
Received on Friday, 6 February 2009 22:06:23 UTC