Re: 13.1.2 Warnings
Koen Holtman (koen@win.tue.nl)
Fri, 18 Oct 1996 12:20:06 +0200 (MET DST)
Daniel DuBois:
>
>>Perhaps we have different ideas of what "transparency" means, but it seems to
>>me that receiving an entity with an erroneous header is not transparent. It
>
>OK, you are right. I was thinking about transparancy of the entity body.
>But in the HTTP spec, semantic transparency is defined as 'exactly the same
>response (except for hop-by-hop headers)'. Warning, although added in a
>middle hop, I dont believe can be considered a hop-by-hop header.
I don't think there is a wording problem here: the spec talks about
_weakening_ the transparency. I read
Warnings are always cachable, because they never weaken the transparency
of a response.
to mean `.., because they never cause a stale response to be
interpreted as fresh'.
Aside: though I don't think that the sentence is _wrong_, I do think
it is potentially confusing. I have argued repeatedly in the past
that the term `semantic transparency' is useless for describing HTTP,
and that it should therefore not be used in the draft. Like
`idempotence', the term `semantic transparency' will haunt us for
years to come.
>Daniel DuBois
Koen.