- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 03:14:33 +0000
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
David Booth wrote: > On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 01:16 +0000, Nathan wrote: >> even shorter: >> >> IR = something you could potentially GET a copy of > > That sounds like it is trying to go down the same path as the existing > AWWW definition of IR > http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#def-information-resource yes, but more than suggest it, state it to be true and fact that the thing you have received is a realization (copy/instance) of the thing you requested, it's certainly true for every single HTTP resource you can GET that I've ever encountered, and the whole reason we need copyright for such things, and the whole reason people say there content has been "copied". If you can point me to any dereferencable resource on the web which responds w/ 200 OK to a GET where the representation received cannot be considered a realization / copy / instance of that resource then I'll gladly rethink - as you know I've been on both sides of this fence in the past. cheers, nathan
Received on Monday, 28 February 2011 03:15:18 UTC