- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:15:22 +0100
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Danny, Yes, that wording is wrong, thanks. I'll change it. Jeni 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. > > -- > http://dannyayers.com > > http://webbeep.it - text to tones and back again > > -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 13:16:00 UTC