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

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 11:04:59 +1000
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: <865EF2BA-7BF1-496A-84B7-C3DB42201D26@mnot.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On 14/06/2009, at 9:48 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>
>> IME this distinction is critical and not making it causes all sorts  
>> of
>> problems.
>
> Like what?

Confusion, of course. Changing the terminology of the Web fifteen  
years after it was established will only add to that.


> 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.

You're wrong, and in terms of the Web, HTTP and URI are two out of  
three -- you're outnumbered as well.


> (Can you get any Web designer to
> correctly explain the difference between the terms resource  
> identifier,
> resource, and resource representation as you use them?)

Do you think they'll actually be reading these documents?



--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2009 01:05:38 GMT

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