W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2003

RE: HTTP Range Middle ground?

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:31:46 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B5FBC17@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <clbullar@ingr.com>, <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

I'm all for the promotion of recommended best practices over absolute constraints.
 
Though, there is of course the issue that the "best practice" in question here (that certain forms of URI should only be used to denote certain types of resources) is not agreed by all (or perhaps even most) to be a "best practice" but appears simply to reflect the personal preference of a small minority. And also seems to be in conflict with another supposed best practice, that URIs are opaque with regards to denotation.
 
I, and I expect many others, would be very disappointed to see any prohibition by the TAG, either absolute or labeled as "bad practice", against the use of http: URIs without fragment identifiers to denote arbitrary resources; whether or not representations of those resources are available.
 
Patrick
 
 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: ext Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com] 
	Sent: Wed 7/30/2003 9:53 PM 
	To: 'Norman Walsh' 
	Cc: www-tag@w3.org 
	Subject: RE: HTTP Range Middle ground?
	
	


	+1
	
	len
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: Norman Walsh [mailto:Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM]
	
	What we need the folks who are adamant that it must be illegal to
	relax a little and say "okay, it's not *illegal*, but can we document
	it as really bad practice?" and the folks who say no convention is
	needed to say "ok, it isn't necessary, but it doesn't do any harm to
	conform to this notion of good practice."
	
	Any takers?
	
	
Received on Monday, 4 August 2003 04:31:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:00 UTC