- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:16:24 +1000
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 24/07/2009, at 8:57 AM, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net> wrote: > fre 2009-07-24 klockan 08:34 +1000 skrev Mark Nottingham: >> Regarding 'requested resource', would it be better if we used >> 'targeted resource' consistently? > > I can¨t really comment on that before we have had a serious > terminology > discussion as it's not at all helpful going around changing one term > at > a time. But I think I prefer requested resource over targeted resource > assuming it intends to mean the same thing (Request-URI). Request-uri is now request-target; I suggested that term to reflect that, as well as avoid the resource vs respresentation confusion that "requested" brings about. Regarding having a serious terminology discussion - of course it needs to be considered as a whole, but we have to start somewhere. We've had these issues on our list for quite some time and have only made stop and start progress so far; I'm hopeful that next week will be an opportunity to make more significant inroads. > Related to this there also needs some explanatory text describing why > operations operating on an URI as such like PUT/DELETE and content > negotiation do not mix very well. I think that depends on how #69 goes...
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 00:17:03 UTC