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

Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:09:16 +0100
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090616180916.GD11893@shareable.org>
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 7:45 AM, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> >Ok, but what about a resource that accepts POSTed information _and_
> >information in the URL?  For example a hypothetical POSTable
> >http://example.com/post-news/author-is/Jamie/subject-is/Good%20morning
> >
> >Then the URL doesn't point to the conceptual resource any more.  Part
> >of the URL does (http://example.com/post-news/); the rest of the URL
> >does not identify a resource, but is input to it.
> 
> No, (http://example.com/post-news/) is not *the* resource.
> It may be a resource, but it is not the resource to which
> the URI above identifies, and therefore your assumption about
> the meaning of "resource" in Web architecture is wrong.

No, because I'm not describing the meaning of "resource" in Web
architecture here, I'm describing the sensible use of the English
concept of a resource.

Web architecture says the resource accessed through

http://example.com/post-news/author-is/Jamie/subject-is/Good%20morning

is different from the resource accessed through

http://example.com/post-news/author-is/Roy/subject-is/Bzzt

Which doesn't fit very well the English concept of "the resource"
which is being accessed when you actually do those things.

(If those URLs didn't just post news, say if you could read filtered
news through them too, _then_ the concept would fit better.  It has
nothing to do with implementation; it is about conceptual models).

So you have to *define* the Web architecture meaning of resource, and
that will always be a little dissonant with what the conjures up for
people who aren't familiar with Web architecture.

> Your mistake is assuming that "resource" has something to do with
> the implementation behind the server interface.

No, I'm not talking about the implementation at all.  I'm talking
about concepts, models and common language meanings.

> Ian's mistake is assuming that what people
> refer to is the bag of bits they get back, as opposed to the function
> being exploited by the request method on the server-provided resource
> at the time of the request (e.g., if the link is to today's weather
> report then the resource is today's weather report, not some former
> weather report's bag of bits).

I agree with that.

> In any case, the word "resource" is far more commonly used the way
> I use it than the way that Ian described.  As indicated, it comes
> direct from the English language.

Your usage comes from the meaning as used in Web architecture, and
seems to my mind dissonant with the meaning used in English in these
cases.

I'm quite familiar with the Web architecture meaning.  I just don't
think it fits very well the conceptual models that are actually being
used on some web sites, and I think that is the root of Ian's idea
that it confuses some developers.  Though I don't agree with Ian's
suggestion.  Obviously the Web architecture meaning fits some sites'
conceptual models quite well.

-- Jamie
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 18:09:53 GMT

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