W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013


From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 02:09:12 +0100
Message-ID: <527996B8.50802@gmx.de>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
On 2013-09-23 21:17, James M Snell wrote:
> Just a general FYI... I have submitted iteration -04 of the
> LINK/UNLINK draft with a few minor editorial fixes... and, I have
> formally requested Last Call status as an Independent Submission on
> the Standards Track.
>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-link-method-04

Hi James,

some feedback:

- you may want to talk about what kind of processing of the link target 
happens, such as: is the server allowed or even required to check the 
target's existence (thus can LINK create "dangling" links?) If it does, 
an example would help (status code etc)

- clarify whether an anchor parameter should either be ignored or be an 

- you and I know that success could be 200 or 204, but if you don't have 
it at least in the examples, at least some people will be confused (and 
argue whether it should be 201 :-)

- is it an error to try to remove a link that doesn't exist? What if I 
try to UNLINK one existing and one non-existing one?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2013 01:09:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:19 UTC