| CARVIEW |
Select Language
HTTP/2 301
date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 17:47:36 GMT
content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
location: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012May/0092.html
cf-ray: 98c7f19e1aa12ffb-BLR
cache-control: max-age=21600
expires: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 22:11:08 GMT
x-backend: www-mirrors
x-request-id: 98c7644fe9ffaa0f
strict-transport-security: max-age=15552000; includeSubdomains; preload
content-security-policy: frame-ancestors 'self' https://cms.w3.org/ https://cms-dev.w3.org/; upgrade-insecure-requests
cf-cache-status: HIT
set-cookie: __cf_bm=pySH1OdmF3w9_DUdgMpxhzLivO_rJa4f158uvpuafJM-1760118456-1.0.1.1-TRz3vPX2unaa9ds4oW0P0c8nJUlVb6rIv7nokWUnCzQSRJaWwDUoNFeqGwbM6YblP1VgZPBp4ciCPKfjQqRAzEjjfx_oCRj8ofypGGIrn_s; path=/; expires=Fri, 10-Oct-25 18:17:36 GMT; domain=.w3.org; HttpOnly; Secure; SameSite=None
vary: Accept-Encoding
server: cloudflare
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400
HTTP/2 200
date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 17:47:37 GMT
content-type: text/html
content-encoding: gzip
last-modified: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:54:52 GMT
cache-control: max-age=2592000, public
expires: Sun, 09 Nov 2025 02:43:11 GMT
vary: Accept-Encoding
access-control-allow-origin: *
x-request-id: 98c2c4c97805dd3e
strict-transport-security: max-age=15552015; preload
x-frame-options: deny
x-xss-protection: 1; mode=block
cf-cache-status: HIT
server: cloudflare
cf-ray: 98c7f1a30b35c179-BLR
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400
ACTION-682 suggest to TAG sections of HTTPbis specification that TAG should review from Jonathan A Rees on 2012-05-22 (www-tag@w3.org from May 2012)
ACTION-682 suggest to TAG sections of HTTPbis specification that TAG should review
- From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 17:48:56 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAGnGFM+CP42RQ038oiLJawm0cm+drD+2gN608EmHkbnPD6FTwA@mail.gmail.com>
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: https://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 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-19#section-5 6.3. GET https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-19#section-6.3 6.6. PUT https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-19#section-6.6 7.2.1. 200 OK https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-19#section-7.2.1 7.3.4. 303 See Other https://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: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2012JanMar/0412.html and elaborated a bit here: https://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.
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 21:49:50 UTC