Re: proposed change to a spec

On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 02:06 +0000, Nathan wrote:
> I'm thinking about asking for HTTP-BIS to be changed, specifically the 
> text in:
>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-12#section-4
> 
> from:
> [[
>     A "representation" is information in a format that can be readily
>     communicated from one party to another.  A resource representation is
>     information that reflects the state of that resource, as observed at
>     some point in the past (e.g., in a response to GET) or to be desired
>     at some point in the future (e.g., in a PUT request).
> ]]
> 
> to:
> [[
>     A "representation" is information in a format that can be readily
>     communicated from one party to another. A resource representation is
>     a realization (copy/instance) of the state of that resource, as
>     observed at some point in the past (e.g., in a response to GET) or to
>     be desired at some point in the future (e.g., in a PUT request).
> ]]
> 
> does anybody here object?

Yes, vehemently.  Obviously what you GET is some reflection of the state
of the resource, but the client cannot assume that the information it
receives reflects the *full* state of the resource.  Any amount of
complexity may be hidden behind the HTTP interface.  In fact, that
complexity may not even be deterministic.  Consider today's weather in
Oaxaca:
http://www.weather.com/weather/today/Oaxaca+Mexico+MXOA0069 
The full state of that resource certainly cannot be conveyed in the HTTP
response.

I think the re-wording you're suggesting only applies to a limited kind
of resource.  I think the existing wording above is more appropriate in
general.



-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.

Received on Monday, 28 February 2011 03:00:08 UTC