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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:42:42 -0700
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <145D755A-0E8C-4607-A5EC-45B3AA353CDC@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Apr 8, 2010, at 12:35 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
>> This is informed by discussion with lots of people, but nobody
>> else has looked at it, so it's just from me.
> Would the following be an acceptable compromise?
>  <p>What some specifications, in particular the HTTP and URI
>  specifications, refer to as a <i>representation</i> is referred to
>  in this specification as a <dfn title="">resource</dfn>.</p>

As a point of clarification, would you include the RFC references for  
the HTTP and URI specs after that sentence, as alluded to below?

>> of [RFC3986].
> The spec's style is to not use references in sentences but to use the
> colloquial names of the specifications and then have the reference
> after the sentence.

Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 07:43:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC