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 13:09:44 -0500
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <1270577384.4466.2784.camel@pav.lan>
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 18:00 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > > 
> > > 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.
> 
> They don't define the term, but they use it the same way as HTML5.

I accept that as your opinion. I don't agree.

> > 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.
> 
> What does it identify? The script on the server? I can see a need for a 
> term for use in abstract discussions, but in the concrete world of the 
> implementable specs, there doesn't seem to be any need. It's just bits on 
> the wire -- a URL turns into an HTTP request which turns into a bag of 
> bits with headers and data... there's no need to talk about the server- 
> side script, even, let alone the abstract concept of that script.

Whether you see a need or not is not relevant to this proposal; the
fact is: there are previously ratified specs that use
the URI/resource/representation model, and they are cited by the
HTML 5 spec. Some explanation of the difference in terminology is
in order.

As editor, your opinion is relevant to the wholesale use of
terminology in the spec, but I don't propose to change that.
I only propose that the spec provide some explanation
of the difference between your preferred terminology
and the previously ratified terminology.

-- 
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 18:09:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:07 GMT