- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:17:12 +0100
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Hi, I think the discussion misses at least two important points, so I'll start with a fresh mail about them...: 1) The IANA, the RFC-Editor (and to some degree the IETF) historically have a problems considering HTTP URLs to be stable in any way. For instance, the RFC-Editor rejects URLs in citations, even when the author can demonstrate that the URL has been stable for many many years. Instead he/she suggests to just link to the site, and then let the reader figure out how to find the individual document (see discussion around <http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2008-November/000986.html>). Furthermore, there are rules not to publish URLs of IANA registries at all, so IANA right now isn't even committing to keep the existing registry URLs stable. So asking them for 303-instead-of-200 appears to be very optimistic to me. 2) On the other, to convince people to follow httpRange-14 it probably would help if the W3C demonstrated it's use. For instance, why is an XML namespace an information resource, while a link relation isn't? Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 09:17:54 UTC