W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > February 2011

Re: hold up

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:26:18 +0000
Message-ID: <4D6929AA.20102@webr3.org>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>> I've just been reading huge chunks of archived messages again, and there's a
>> consistent phrase coming out that's just flat out wrong.
>>
>>  "a representation of the resource"
>>
>> that's not what HTTP and the specs say, a representation is a representation
>> of the current or intended state of a resource. not a representation of the
>> resource.
> 
> While I agree that the first is unjustified, I'm not convinced that
> the second has any support in the specs, other than fleeting mention
> in AWWW.

this seems pretty clear to me:

    A "representation" is information in a format that can be readily
    communicated from one party to another.  A resource representation is
    information that reflects the state of that resource, as observed at
    some point in the past (e.g., in a response to GET) or to be desired
    at some point in the future (e.g., in a PUT request).

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-12#section-4

but even regardless of that, if you GET a 200 OK then the URI must refer 
to a resource, which has a state (even if that state is just existence), 
and the HTTP Interface is a property of that resource, therefore the 
class of all HTTP resources must be the class of all things which exist 
and have the HTTP Interface as a property - we can say everything else 
is hidden by the interface, but the aforemention still remains true, 
does it not?
Received on Saturday, 26 February 2011 16:27:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 26 February 2011 16:27:39 GMT