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

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

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 05:06:04 +0000 (UTC)
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004130459430.751@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 00:35 -0700, 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>
> 
> That's probably close enough, sure.

Cool. I've checked this in.


> > > such as section 1.2.2
> > 
> > I try to avoid referencing specific section numbers because they 
> > change when the specs are updated, leading to extra editing work 
> > later.
> 
> The risk is pretty small in the case of a full Internet Standard.

Not really. Two of the specs being discussed here (HTTP and IRI) are 
actively being revised as we speak, and some think URI should be quite 
significantly revised also.


> My preference would be to elaborate the section reference to 1.2.2.  
> Separating Identification from Interaction rather than eliminating it.

I don't understand how this reference helps. Aren't the people who are 
going to care about this at all already familiar with this terminology?


> But as the premise of this proposal is that a segment of the audience is 
> familiar with the URI spec, I don't think a specific section reference 
> is critical.

Right.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 05:06:34 UTC

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