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

> 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.
>