- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:38:25 +0200
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- CC: 'Richard Cyganiak' <richard@cyganiak.de>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Larry Masinter wrote: > This conversation is filling my mailbox. Some general > observations: > ... Larry, thanks a LOT for this reply. My takeaway is that we (the HTTPbis WG) are willing to do minor word smithing to clarify things, but that's it. In draft 07, we already replaced "resource owner" by "URI owner", as suggested by Roy. In another mail (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JulSep/0044.html>), Roy proposed another change: > That's because you happen to be reading it differently than > what I was thinking when I wrote it. The sentence is a bit > ambiguous if you don't pay attention to what the second "that" > means. If it is reordered to say > > A 303 response to a GET request indicates that the server does > not have a transferable representation of the requested resource > and is instead redirecting the client to some other resource > for further information. > > then I think the objection is handled without watering down > the purpose of using the status code on a GET. I'm happy to make this change if there are no objections, and it does make at least a few people less unhappy. BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 09:39:09 UTC