- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: 19 Sep 2003 17:39:29 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1064007568.1577.1760.camel@seabright>
Hello, As I mentioned in my email about the 16 Sep draft of this finding [1], I was uncomfortable with some of the new language involving the broad term "auditing". In light of some feedback from Noah, and from discussions with Dan Connolly (on this topic and another), I have made available the 19 Sep draft of "URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET and POST" [2]. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0044 [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030919.html The changes between the 16 and 19 Sep drafts are: - Addition of sentence about and reference to RFC2310 (based on Larry Masinter email). Sentence added just before 3.1 - Section 3.1 examples moved to three subsections. Two examples added: * 3.1.2 Steps for establishing an obligation. Most of this text is taken from DanC's original version of this finding. * 3.1.3 Side effects do not imply unsafe interaction. The example of site counters is given. The user incurs no obligation even though the interaction changes the state of the server. - Section 4. Sentence about 'audited resource' deleted since I think overly broad. Instead, I hope the new examples will cover some of the ground Noah had in mind. HTML diff available at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet-20030919-diffs.html _ Ian -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Friday, 19 September 2003 17:39:36 UTC