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

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:35:26 +0000 (UTC)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0906132334090.16244@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > 
> > 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).

Right, the resource varies over time. The URI identifies a different 
resource over time. Distinguishing the "representation of the resource" 
and the resource itself is a theoretical distinction that really isn't of 
much use in practice, and continuing to insist on the use of such 
terminology does nothing but alienate people who read specifications for 
the first time.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 13 June 2009 23:36:00 GMT

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