W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2008

Re: Feedback on "Offline Web Applications" (Editor's Draft 17 November 2007)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 11:24:18 +0200
Message-ID: <481C2F42.40900@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> 3. Offline Application Caching APIs -- not sure that using 
>> "server.cgi" as a name is a good idea over here; my understanding was 
>> that Cool URIs Do Not Change, thus encoding some technology-specific 
>> extension into an URI generally is not a good idea. Suggest to simply 
>> use something like "events".
> 
> I think "server.cgi" more accurately indicates it takes a URI than if we 
> just used the "events" so I left at is. (If the technology changes a 
> permanent redirect can be used or you simply change the type using a 
> ForceType directive or something like that. Should not be much trouble.)

Well, not convinced. I don't see how "server.cgi" looks more like a URI 
than "events". Actually, it looks like a filename to me.

In doubt, put in something with an absolute path, or even a full URI.

>> - "...that takes up one mebibyte of storage." -- Typo?
> 
> This no longer appears in the draft. (It was not a typo though, a 
> mebibyte is the "official" name for 1024^2 bytes.)

That may be true, but in this particular case is totally useless as it 
doesn't matter whether it's 1000000 or 1024^2, but it *does* distract.

Thanks for the other changes.

BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 3 May 2008 09:25:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:17 GMT