- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:58:23 +1000
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 04/06/2012, at 10:57 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Mark Nottingham wrote: >> On 02/06/2012, at 8:30 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> -1; if we change the terms we should do so consistently. >> >> I thought "details" captured a certain vagueness that would help in this particular case. YMMV. > > I agree with Julian in that if we want to consider changing the termino- > logy, we should do that in a dedicated thread rather than arguing about > the terms in the particular example, short of a rationale why this par- > ticular instance is exceptional. I don't think, in any case, "details" > would be a good replacement. See my subsequent message; my understanding was that this is a special case, because it's not talking about what's happening on the wire. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 00:58:53 UTC