Re: 12, 14.43: resource arguments and conneg
Paul Burchard (burchard@cs.princeton.edu)
Sun, 2 Jun 96 18:42:38 -0400
> I'm going to rule out of order this terminology discussion.
But it's not a terminology discussion any more -- I'm saying the
spec is perfectly clear, but wrong.
> The spec, as written, seems understandable to most
> who've been reading it.
The evidence on this list is otherwise -- every post in this thread
has attempted to read a different set of assumed variations into
the spec (not too surprising, since the spec makes all of them
illegal).
I've proposed some specific text (not a global change) to fix the
problem and draw what I think is a simple but natural dividing line.
If you can tell me why it's bogus, I'll slink back to my corner.
P.S. I'm not just trying to be annoying -- my underlying concern
continues to be proper attention for the POST method. The current
Vary spec seems unacceptably (if unintentionally) POST-hostile to
me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Burchard <burchard@cs.princeton.edu>
``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''
--------------------------------------------------------------------