- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:58:25 +1100
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
There's been a lot of discussion on i69, and while we've made some progress, it may be to complex to solve as one issue. The threads that I see being productive to work on are (roughly in order?): 1) Clarify entity / representation / variant terminology (possibly ditching at least one) [new issue] 2) Remove 'requested variant' terminology from sections that don't really need it (possibly as part of a rewrite). [new issue, or just part of i69] 3) Clarify "requested variant" or define an new term for the remaining uses. [what is currently i69] 4) Clarify what a response carries WRT representations / entities, taking into account status codes, Content-Location, etc. [new issue] 5) Define what the metadata (e.g., ETag) in a response is associated with, when a) it has a Content-Location, or b) isn't associated with an identified resource (as per #2) [what is currently i22] Make sense? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 04:58:40 UTC