- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:12:56 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2013 01:13:23 UTC
Excellent feedback. Thank you. Will incorporate it. On Nov 5, 2013 5:09 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > 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 > error > > - 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 01:13:23 UTC