W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Gloss standard terminology for resource/representation (ISSUE-81 Change Proposal)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:53:50 -0500
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <1270576430.4466.2777.camel@pav.lan>
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 17:31 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Dan Connolly wrote:
> >
> > This is informed by discussion with lots of people, but nobody else has 
> > looked at it, so it's just from me.
> > 
> > I understand proposals were due January 16, 2010; I hope this proposal 
> > will get some consideration even though it's late.
> 
> Just out of interest, is there any particular reason why the proposal 
> explicitly calls out the HTTP and URI specs rather than focusing on 
> consistency with other W3C specs?

Do you mean other W3C data format specs, such as CSS?
There wasn't while I was preparing it, but now that I think
about it: I don't think other W3C data format specs try to define
the terms "resource" and "representation". They
import the terms from the URI spec.

I thought about citing http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ , but
the relevant material there seems to be covered by the URI
standard (RFC3986), which is already cited by HTML 5.
The motivation for calling out HTTP is similar: it's a spec
that HTML 5 cites.

Another motivation for calling out HTTP is that the
distinction between the URI/resource/representation
world-view and the URL/resource world-view is tangible
there; when discussing multiple HTTP transactions
based on a URI, it makes sense to speak of one
thing that the URI identifies across them.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 17:53:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:16 UTC