Re: Client MUST advertise ability to support LDP Paging

Greg, on today's working group call, the working group endorsed Sandro's 
initial response to change 6.2.17 to a SHOULD NOT, for the reasons he 
articulated at [3].  At the end of [3], the final sentence 
"Unfortunately..." said that we can't say much about those clients that 
treat 303 as 307/308, but I think otherwise, conferred with Sandro, and he 
changed his mind.

I just made updates to the editor's draft at [1], changeset [2] to clarify 
that.  They net out to:

5.1.6 = new MUST NOT on clients (outlawing the conflation of 303 with 
307/308), which is NOT specifically approved by the working group yet  ... 
they might prefer Should Not; I could live with either personally.
6.2.17 = changed (Must > Should as you requested, plus edits in 
non-normative note)

If this addresses your comment to your satisfaction, or not, please 
respond to that effect on the list.  In the "or not" case, if you have any 
specific changes that would satisfy you by all means supply them as input. 
 The working group will be reviewing in parallel as well, so it is 
possible that this will still evolve; in the case of substantive change, 
we'll have to ask you to take another look, but that seems unlikely in the 
case of 6.2.17; 5.1.6 is less certain simply because fewer eyes/brains 
have already seen it.

If you have any reactions that one or the other on its own is sufficient 
from your point of view, that's also useful feedback.


[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp-paging.html
[2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/rev/80eceaffcba5
[3] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-comments/2014Jul/0002.html


Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead