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 23:48:30 +0000 (UTC)
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0906132344400.16244@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> IME this distinction is critical and not making it causes all sorts of 
> problems.

Like what?


> Are you seriously suggesting that you want to re-defined "resource" 
> across the scope of the Web -- both in the W3C and IETF?

I'm claiming that the term "resource" already means "bag of bits" and that 
it is only within the context of the URI specs and the HTTP specs that 
anyone claims otherwise, and that these claims are based on a distinction 
that is purely theoretical and doesn't actually affect deployed content, 
or users, except for confusing them. (Can you get any Web designer to 
correctly explain the difference between the terms resource identifier, 
resource, and resource representation as you use them?)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 13 June 2009 23:49:03 GMT

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