Re: ISSUE-81 (resource vs representation)

Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> Your definition of XXXX suggests that there's a one-to-one
> correspondence between URLs and XXXXs, so why not treat them as

Incorrect. Many URIs can identify the same XXXX.

> isomorphic?  Any reference to an XXXX can be reworded to refer to a
> URL instead.  The word "resource" can then be used in more or less its
> normal English meaning, to talk about YYYYs.  I think this is roughly
> what the spec has done.  This usage might not accord with some other

"some other"? Sorry, this is getting ridiculous.

> specs, but it ends up being completely precise and unambiguous taken
> by itself.  It also uses less standards jargon, and more practical
> terms that anyone should understand, and at least that is a good
> thing.

If that is a good thing, why aren't we changing stuff like:

> A DOCTYPE must consist of the following characters, in this order:
> 
>    1. A U+003C LESS-THAN SIGN (<) character.
>    2. A U+0021 EXCLAMATION MARK (!) character.
>    3. A string that is an ASCII case-insensitive match for the string "DOCTYPE".
>    4. One or more space characters.
>    5. A string that is an ASCII case-insensitive match for the string "HTML".
>    6. Optionally, a DOCTYPE legacy string (defined below).
>    7. Zero or more space characters.
>    8. A U+003E GREATER-THAN SIGN (>) character.

???

BR, Julian