- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:14:11 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > I know where you're coming from. > > However, rev's semantics are *extremely* muddy and effectively > format-specific; I think we're already at the point where it is Really? Pointer? > re-defined every time it's used. And, defining it syntactically in Link > without defining its semantics doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Minimally we should ensure that it's not used as a name for future extension parameters if that use would conflict with the text in RFC 2068. > Thus, it seems to me that the options are to either take it out of the > syntax completely, or leave it in the syntax for the sole purpose of > deprecating it (since we can't really define crisp semantics for it). If these are the choices, I'd definitively prefer the latter. BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 08:22:21 UTC