[web-annotation] TAG comments (@mnot)

azaroth42 has just created a new issue for 

== TAG comments (@mnot) ==


> * This specification is effectively profiling HTTP by using language
 like "The server must support the following HTTP methods on the 
Annotation Container's URI." It should just describe the 
representations and interaction expectations upon resources that use 
> * Likewise, it's very MUST/SHOULD heavy; when specs overuse the 
RFC2119 terms, it doesn't help readability or interoperability.
> * "When a paging preference is received, instead of returning the 
representation of the container, the server must return a response 
with the status code of 303 and a Location header with the URI for the
 first page." What if the user isn't authorised? What if other parts 
of the request are malformed? What if the resource doesn't exist? 
MUSTs like this are seldom helpful.
> * 5. Error Conditions creates application-specific semantics for 
standard HTTP status codes. This is an anti-pattern; the point of HTTP
 status codes is that any application (including intermediaries) can 
understand them; application-specific semantics belong in the payload.

Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/313 using your GitHub 

Received on Friday, 24 June 2016 14:51:18 UTC