Re: httpRange-14 errata

On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 16:43 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> Just for fun I revisited the httpRange14 errata page, and put some
> text there that reflects my understanding - basically a very short
> version of the 'information resources and web metadata' note.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/ErrataHttpRange14#JAR.27s_version_of_what_the_resolution_should_have_been
> 
> I deleted the 404 clause because I couldn't figure out what purpose it had.
> 
> It seems we need something like this, since the IR note is too long -
> if I can't get you all to read it, I'll never get the TAG to read it -
> but there is a need for something to point to. (I was moved to do this
> by reading Larry Masinter's confused comments in the recent F2F
> minutes.)
> 
> If HTTPbis ever gets finished the 303 clause can go away.  It would be
> nice to get the 2xx part into the RFCs as well, but 3986 might be a
> better place to put it than HTTP, since you could nail *all* the
> dereferenceable URIs all at once - data: ftp: gopher: tdb:(??) and
> maybe even urn:.
> 
> Of course this would be sort of pointless if the rule doesn't stick.
> So let's wait and see.

FYI: 

1. I've reformatted the comments to be easier to read -- the usual ":"
convention for wiki comments does not work with the current stylesheet.
I've written to sysreq asking for it to be fixed.

2. I've added some comments to your proposed httpRange-14 rule fix.



-- 
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 Tuesday, 21 June 2011 16:31:38 UTC