W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > June 2009

Re: Are generic resources intentional?

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 22:45:55 +0100
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0906091445n56bc9eb4j68a2de8164a45bc0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
> Why not, "can emit a response to some kind of access protocol"  ? That seems
> to handle all the present and all the likely future cases, be unambiguous,
> and (by philosophical standards) vividly clear and unambiguous. And it has
> the great merit of talking about the **actual resource** rather than an
> awww:representation of it, which (latter) is what gets conveyed in messages,
> in fact.

What does  "can emit a response to some kind of access protocol"  the answer to?
Notably, it doesn't include things like text files with html in them.

Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 21:46:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:07 UTC