Re: httpRange-14 Change Proposal

Jeni Tennison wrote:
> Nathan,
> 
> On 29 Mar 2012, at 12:48, Nathan wrote:
>> You can think of the term "Resource" as being namespaced within each specification, RFC3986-Resource is not equivalent to HTTPbis-Resource. Indeed it's this ambiguity in terminology which creates most of the mess around httpRange-14.
> 
> Could you please point me to the part of HTTPbis that defines "resource" (ie HTTPbis-Resource)? I understand that HTTPbis only talks about resources that are identified through HTTP URIs, but I can't find the part of the specification that defines "resource" such that I (a Person) am not an HTTPbis resource.

I'll defer you to Roy and Tim (both cc'd) on that one ;)

However, regardless of the reply to the above, as outlined previously 
[1] I believe that your change proposal [2] is still a change proposal 
which affects HTTPbis rather than httpRange-14. Perhaps somebody who 
knows the area better than I can confirm.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Mar/0179.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Mar/0086.html

Best,

Nathan

Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 13:03:59 UTC