- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:15:10 -0400
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > I trust your judgement and will +1 whatever you think is best. Often I don't discover what I think until it comes out of my mouth. That's why I find telcons and meetings helpful. > The documents produced are very good and in my mind, nice and clear. My only > concern is with being GET 200 specific, so I'd be happy to have a final > drive through to the end of the year to try to make it method, and > potentially protocol, agnostic advise. If anybody else is up for it. Well I don't consider "retrieval" to be tied to GET 200 or even to HTTP, and I have recently been always generalizing from GET/200 to retrieval (a word used in RFC 3986). But your point is well taken and I haven't thought about it enough. E.g. we have the analogous situation with using mailto: URIs to 'identify' people, which you're not supposed to do but which someone might be inclined to do. And I have been steadily worried about POST in relation to HR14a. Best Jonathan > Best, > > Nathan > > Jonathan Rees wrote: >> >> Quorum is 3. >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> >> Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:34 PM >> Subject: AWWSW Telecon Tuesday 2011-09-27 >> To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org> >> >> Agenda: >> We need to just declare victory and shut the group down. >> It's clear that given the low level of interest we're not going to >> solve any more problems so let's just figure out what to report to the >> TAG. >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> > >
Received on Saturday, 22 October 2011 01:15:37 UTC