- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 03:52:25 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- cc: Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Doug Davis wrote:
> Geoff,
> Allow me to turn it around for a sec... if the general premise of
> "strongly encouraging" is agreed to, and people do not "want a
> proliferation of fragment specs", then an obvious question (to me anyway)
> is: what's so bad about having it in Transfer? I've heard (and understand
If the fragment definition is in Transfer, then it is quite likely
somebody else will define another "fragment spec" be it more general, or
attached to another spec. That's why having a standalone document for
fragment definition makes far more sense, it can be referred from
Transfer, but also from other specs that don't want to reuse Transfer.
As I said during the call, fragments definition are more linked to the
addressing or resources than the action on them (and for the record,
having the action distinct form the URI of the service is, well,
suboptimal. At least transfer allows action to be a set of properties, but
I digress ;) ).
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2009 07:52:36 UTC