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

Re: nathans definition of an IR

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 03:14:33 +0000
Message-ID: <4D6B1319.4090807@webr3.org>
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.


Received on Monday, 28 February 2011 03:15:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:09 UTC