Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

On Sat, 2012-03-24 at 16:43 +0000, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> Thanks James,
> 
> I've substituted that text in.
> 

Thanks,

The document makes it unclear how an agent should handle provenance for
NIR URI with a 200 response.

If a :describedby relationship exists, should an agent assume that the
object of that relationship contains the same information the probe URI
response does?

Is it okay for a single agent to use the probe URI (with a 200 response)
as both an identifier for the documentation and an identifier for the
NIR it describes?

Regards,
James

Received on Saturday, 24 March 2012 17:36:34 UTC