W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:51:49 +0200
Message-ID: <4A340355.9010405@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Separately, as an editorial comment, as listed directly above, I'd like to
>>>> see a big s/resource/resource representation/g (or just
>>>> s/resource/representation/g as the resource is what is identified by the
>>>> URI, not the bag-o-bits returned in an HTTP response.  I have some other
>>>> editorial comments too, but those will have to wait until I have time to
>>>> write them down.
>>> A resource is a bag of bits. I would object to this change.
>> Mark is correct. Please use terminology consistent with other IETF specs.
> 
> In this particular case, I really would encourage the use of terms people 
> understand. In any case, the term "resource" is correct when refering to a 
> file, stream, or other "bag of bits". The terminology used by HTTP in this 
> instance is inconsistent with wider usage (and remarkably confusing).

No, that usage isn't exclusive to HTTP. URI identify resources, but the 
retrieval returns you a representation of the resource, not the 
resource. For instance, that's true for "file:" as well (the contents 
may vary over time).

BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 13 June 2009 19:52:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:03 GMT