Subject: Re: Definition of 'resource' not consistent with RFC 3986

From: Jonathan Rees <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:38:28 -0500

On Jan 30, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> I don't think this has been raised before. That being said, this  
> area (Part 1) is work-in-progress, so now certainly is the right  
> moment to raise it.

Have I raised it now, or do I need to do something else procedurally?  
Since no one else has piped up to support or fight this, and no issue  
number is assigned, I'm not sure where this stands.

In case anyone missed it, I'm *indirectly* asking HTTPbis to either  
help, hinder, or stay out of the way of the TAG's resolution [1] of  
its httpRange-14 issue. Indirectly because HTTP and its WG shouldn't  
have any specific reason to care about it one way or the other, as it  
seems awfully applicationsy. But asking for 'resource' to be fixed in  
HTTP bears on httpRange-14 since (IMO) clarification is impossible  
without having some effect on httpRange-14.

I'm not speaking for the TAG.

Jonathan

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:54:54 +0100

Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> I don't think this has been raised before. That being said, this area 
>> (Part 1) is work-in-progress, so now certainly is the right moment to 
>> raise it.
> 

That depends on the definition of "raised". And yes, if we want to make 
sure that it doesn't get lost it should be added to the issue tracker.

To get this done it would help if you could propose a precise 
description of the problem, plus, optimally, a proposed change.

> ...

BR, Julian

---

From: Jonathan Rees <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:32:44 -0500

On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:54 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>> Have I raised it now, or do I need to do something else  
>> procedurally? Since no one else has piped up to support or fight  
>> this, and no issue number is assigned, I'm not sure where this  
>> stands.
>
> That depends on the definition of "raised". And yes, if we want to  
> make sure that it doesn't get lost it should be added to the issue  
> tracker.
>

I can do this. The precise description is that 'resource' is defined  
in 2616 incompatibly with 3986, and subsequent text assumes the 2616  
definition. Given that no one has ventured an opinion on this, I plan  
to propose minimal changes to the text, in at least three locations,  
in the direction of making 2616bis take a hands-off approach to the  
question of what happens when the URI does not "identify" a "network  
data object or service".

I may also propose text for 303 that allows for some of the new uses  
it has found...

Thanks
Jonathan