Re: Call for proposals to amend the "httpRange-14 resolution"

On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 14:28 -0500, David Booth wrote:
> I find the document at 
> to be hard to read, overly broad, unproductively pedantic and
> unnecessarily entangling philosophical questions with simple matters of
> protocol design.
> As an alternate proposal, I have started a significantly simplified
> document on the W3C wiki at

Any other comments or suggestions, before I submit this?  Notably this

 - describes an explicit protocol for obtaining a URI owner's URI
definition, based on existing practice;

 - focuses on the mechanics of conveying a URI definition, and leaves
the meaning of that definition out of scope; and

 - focuses specifically on "http" (and "https") URIs, because this is
the case that is most relevant to practitioners and the case the
httpRange-14 addressed.

David Booth, Ph.D.

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.

Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 16:54:14 UTC