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

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:05:42 +1200
Message-ID: <4A345AF6.9010709@qbik.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

If there were no distinction between "resource" and the bag of bits 
returned, how would one go about multi language content, where the URIs 
are the same, but different bags of bits are returned for the same URI 
requested based on Accept-Language?

Adrien

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> I contend that this isn't a change except for a tiny number of people 
> (probably all of whom are on the HTTP WG mailing list). Most people have 
> no idea what a "resource representation" is or why it would be different 
> than a resource.
>
>
>   
>>> 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.
>>     
>
> The HTTP and URI specs are confusing. This is the kind of problem we 
> should be working to stop, not making worse.
>
>
>   
>>> (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?
>>     
>
> They certainly won't if we make them impenetrable! We should be working to 
> make our documents more accessible to a wider audience. Making them use 
> terms that are counter to what everyone actually understands is not a 
> good way to welcome more people to the standards development process. It 
> merely continues the stereotype that we are all ivory tower academics.
>
> Can you get any Web browser developer to correctly explain the difference 
> between the terms resource identifier, resource, and resource 
> representation as you use them? I hope you agree that we'd at least expect 
> Web browser developers to read our specs, even if you don't think we 
> should be aiming for Web designers in general to read them.
>
>   

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2009 02:03:02 GMT

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