« Return to Thread: ACTION-682 suggest to TAG sections of HTTPbis specification that TAG should review

Re: ACTION-682 suggest to TAG sections of HTTPbis specification that TAG should review

by Jonathan A Rees :: Rate this Message:

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@...> wrote:
> Jonathan et al,
>
> While you're welcome to provide feedback and raise issues at any time, please note that p1 and p2 are still under active development, and I'd expect substantial portions of them to be rewritten soon (hopefully), so it may be best to wait for the text to settle down first.

Yes, I understood this was the case regarding my particular comment,
although I hadn't thought through what this state of affairs would
mean for TAG review. How will we know when would be the best time to
look at these documents as a group?

Best
Jonathan

> Regards,
>
>
> On 23/05/2012, at 7:48 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
>
>> ACTION-682 suggest to TAG sections of HTTPbis specification that TAG
>> should review
>>
>> TAG members who care about this kind of thing should probably check
>> the following sections to see how they like them.
>>
>> Part 1:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-19#section-2.7.1
>> 2.7.1. http URI scheme
>>
>> esp. paragraph beginning "Although HTTP is independent of the
>> transport protocol"
>>
>> I find it peculiar that there is no discussion of what http: URIs
>> identify, or how they come to identify anything at all.
>>
>> Part 2:
>>
>> 5. Representation
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-19#section-5
>>
>> 6.3. GET
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-19#section-6.3
>>
>> 6.6. PUT
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-19#section-6.6
>>
>> 7.2.1. 200 OK
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-19#section-7.2.1
>>
>> 7.3.4. 303 See Other
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-19#section-7.3.4
>>
>> Personally I am not keen on the change in the definition and use of
>> "representation" and "representation of," and the overall infusion of
>> REST into the spec, but as this is an editorial matter with no
>> normative force I can't really complain.
>>
>> FWIW I complained about a detail in section 5 of part 2 here:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012JanMar/0412.html
>> and elaborated a bit here:
>> http://odontomachus.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/when-identification-and-representation-fight-who-wins/
>> Basically I'm saying that the words "identify" and "representation of"
>> are being used in the spec as if they are meaningful, but it is very
>> difficult to see what, if anything, they mean.
>> I have not received any response.
>>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>

« Return to Thread: ACTION-682 suggest to TAG sections of HTTPbis specification that TAG should review