"entirely determined by the URI owner(s)"

Jonathan Rees <rees@mumble.net> Wed, 01 February 2012 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5EA111E8094 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:42:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yGIj5+H4396g for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:42:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7195311E8085 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:42:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Rsf7a-0008OV-IO for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:41:30 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <jonathan.rees@gmail.com>) id 1Rsf7G-0008M3-IL for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:41:10 +0000
Received: from mail-iy0-f171.google.com ([209.85.210.171]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jonathan.rees@gmail.com>) id 1Rsf7E-0006xT-Dx for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:41:10 +0000
Received: by iaeh11 with SMTP id h11so2292977iae.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:40:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:from:mime-version:content-type:subject:date:in-reply-to:to :references:message-id:x-mailer; bh=INqbKaBHg7uJP7kqqXsPFr1zsp5GkIcVTk+lu3ktT5o=; b=XaQApZbM2TuyUjrLDEE7rkuLJxKMxTTGxa2kZadEVfX1sdy4O24ple1YU7NLvbGBCJ 1Gxjgcp7BIch13CIwEtaxbEwwP9cKMKYIxMQ5nKccxLcnmoqEEKASTfwlXL5U2qStSS3 7PdJ1J+e2SP0qeJGBFMuNchZ+p42vJ4vCHuEs=
Received: by 10.43.133.199 with SMTP id hz7mr22928658icc.35.1328121643022; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:40:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 31-34-214.wireless.csail.mit.edu (31-34-214.wireless.csail.mit.edu. [128.31.34.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lu10sm15794473igc.0.2012.02.01.10.40.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:40:42 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Jonathan A Rees <jonathan.rees@gmail.com>
From: Jonathan Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A832497D-3A52-45CE-ABE5-CA23E33093B6"
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:40:40 -0500
In-Reply-To: <A4780937-AF79-43BA-BCEA-9F9606E27197@gbiv.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <760bcb2a0906150647j33e00457q3a65ffeb124e739c@mail.gmail.com> <4A4AEC63.70405@gmx.de> <760bcb2a0907071344q1a5faf56g19b36c3efd661533@mail.gmail.com> <4A54728B.5070601@gmx.de> <1EB299B3-610E-4A8A-88EB-08EB3EE32BD6@ihmc.us> <8DCF5E71-103C-428B-92FE-F988D3082B1A@gbiv.com> <760bcb2a0907081430m3646a7c3q58ee94164dc66ae2@mail.gmail.com> <A4780937-AF79-43BA-BCEA-9F9606E27197@gbiv.com>
Message-Id: <452E4CBD-DCB7-46AB-BD60-015B0CBCB366@mumble.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.210.171; envelope-from=jonathan.rees@gmail.com; helo=mail-iy0-f171.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Rsf7E-0006xT-Dx 054ea757250da0c0fe1ce0666587def4
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: "entirely determined by the URI owner(s)"
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/452E4CBD-DCB7-46AB-BD60-015B0CBCB366@mumble.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/12301
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Rsf7a-0008OV-IO@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:41:30 +0000

Looking at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-18#section-7.3.4  - I hate to bring this up again - the section is much improved by adding "that can be transferred", so what dx.doi.org is doing with GET/303 is now compatible - but my concern now is a bit different:

   Note that answers to the
   questions of what can be represented, what representations are
   adequate, and what might be a useful description are outside the
   scope of HTTP and thus entirely determined by the URI owner(s).


http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-18#section-7.3.4

I think I have just an editorial remark. If you really want to be hands-off here, which I think is what you said before, then saying it's up to the URI owner(s) is too much of a commitment. It's a non-sequitur, anyhow, since outside the scope does not imply it's up to the URI owner(s). I recommend simply deleting "and thus entirely determined by the URI owner(s)" since it is not meant to, and should not, allow anyone to infer anything about authority over what constitutes a representation. You just want to say that no representation-of authority is granted to *anyone* by HTTP, and that's what the sentence before the word "thus" says.

It might also work to say "and thus must be determined by the URI owner(s)" - well obviously they have to determine it before they emit a 200 response, which I think is what you mean, but they have to do it subject to what "representation of" means (which is outside the scope of HTTP, yes?), not just whimsically. This "must" wording implies a responsibility to do the right thing (respond with a current representation of the resource) in delivering 200 responses, which "entirely determined" does not.

I know I'm splitting semantic hairs around the meaning of the word "determine" in this context but... well this is a simple editorial fix and I predict the hair will be split by someone else in the future, if not by me. I hope I don't need to spell that out further.

-- you don't need to read further if you're convinced already --

Suppose I'm a web contractor and my contract says that representations
of the poem Jabberwocky are to be served at a certain URI.  I say, OK,
the spec says it's entirely up to me, my client has no say, so I will say that this representation
carrying a poem about Humpty Dumpty is a representation of
Jabberwocky. I get sued, with the argument that Humpty Dumpty is not a
rep. of Jabberwocky but my contract said it had to be, and I use the
spec saying "entirely determined" as my defense. If I win - well personally 
I think that would be very odd.

Best
Jonathan