W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: ISSUE-81 (resource vs representation)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 03:23:18 -0700
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <1084148A-0C8D-44D5-BAEA-F7D2D12EF721@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Sep 27, 2009, at 2:45 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> ...
>> More generally, I don't think it makes sense to require HTML5 to  
>> use words with multiple meanings as technical terms in the exact  
>> same way as dependency specifications. There are too many  
>> dependencies, and they use words in different ways. I would only be  
>> concerned if there is actual confusion (as opposed to the purely  
>> hypothetical confusion in this case).
>> ...
>
> Not sure what counts as "dependency" specification. I'm ready to  
> believe that HTML5 currently references other specs that get this  
> wrong, too. But what's relevant here are the specs that define the  
> term.

To give a specific example, Unicode, ECMAScript and CSS all define the  
term "property" in completely different ways. And HTML5 adds yet  
another distinct definition in a different context. As far as I'm  
concerned, this is not a problem, because it's always clear what is  
meant.

Another example: RFC3986 has a different (much more general)  
definition of "resource" than the HTTP RFC.

> Furthermore, as explained earlier, HTML5 is inconsistent in itself;  
> and that's something that should be fixed. If "Foobar" is the thing  
> identified by a URL (HTML5) then it simply can't be a bag-of-bits at  
> the same time.

Natural language is context-sensitive. I don't think any actual  
confusion is caused.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 10:24:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:49 GMT