- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 10:54:11 +0100
- To: "Slik, David" <David.Slik@netapp.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Am 20.01.2022 um 10:42 schrieb Slik, David: > ... >> "content" is the correct term as per >> <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19.html#content > <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19.html#content>>. >> (But we could hyperlink that). > > Guess I'm showing my 2616 age. :) > > Thanks for the pointer to that draft. Nice to see all of the 723x RFCs, > etc, being consolidated together. > ... Most :-). "HTTP/1.1" (the message format) is separate, so is Caching. >> I agree that more examples would be good. However, this would introduce >> a dependency on a draft that is likely to be finished farer in the >> future. Maybe there's a simpler-but-standardized JSON query language >> that we can use (optimally with a defined media type...). > > Ah, I did not know that the timeline for draft-ietf-jsonpath-base was > further out. It's just an assumption. > I will take an action item to draft another example based on something > similar that is already approved. > > Would you like me to open it as an issue in github, or send it to the > mailing list for discussion first? > .. Both works for us. If we expect a change (like adding an example), directly starting with a Github issue makes sense. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2022 09:54:33 UTC