Re: httpRange-14 Change Proposal [editorial tweaks]


Yes, that wording is wrong, thanks. I'll change it.


On 29 Mar 2012, at 14:05, Danny Ayers wrote:

> I'm fairly neutral on the meat of the proposal : I don't think it's
> necessary, but then augmenting existing material with 'describedby'
> does seem a good idea.
> But I do believe it needs some editorial tweaks around this:
> "...a 200 response to a probe URI no longer by itself implies...that
> the response is a representation of the resource identified by the
> probe URI"
> - especially alongside -
> "Rather than simply telling these people that they are Doing It Wrong..."
> Instead of telling the people that aren't aware of the distinction
> made by httpRange-14 they are doing it wrong, in its current wording
> the proposal amounts to a redefinition of resource and representation,
> which tells *everyone* that's followed the specs since around RFC2616
> (1999) they are doing it wrong (in principle, even if they got lucky
> in practice).
> Going down the IR path doesn't seem to work, content vs. description
> opens another can of worms. So maybe an alternative might be to say
> that although what you get with a 200 is a representation, it isn't an
> "authoritative representation" until other information (describedby
> etc) is taken into consideration.
> Also talking about a "probe URI" seems misleading, taken literally it
> implies every request for data should be preceded by a request for
> metadata. Not sure exactly how this might be reworded, but perhaps
> something along the lines of "probe activity" by the client on the
> response.
> Cheers,
> Danny.
> -- 
>  - text to tones and back again

Jeni Tennison

Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 13:16:00 UTC