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

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

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:02:37 -0700
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <8097E2F2-913A-4574-B1EC-A756E8EA57A2@gbiv.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
On Apr 12, 2010, at 10:04 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> Sounds like Dan is satisfied with Ian's suggestion, but prefers retaining a specific section reference. Does anyone else have objections to Ian's language? Does anyone have strong feelings one way or the other on the section reference?
> If no one objects or suggests further alternatives in a day or two, then I'd recommend to the editor to put the proposed language in the spec so we can see it in context. Then we can do a CfC for amicable resolution if it seems agreeable.

Adding a paragraph that basically says this spec is clueless
about overall Web technology (beyond the internal mechanisms
of a general purpose browser) will not satisfy my objection.

As long as the spec is called HTML, I expect it to define HTML
and be defined in the same terms as the rest of Web architecture.

Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 06:03:08 UTC

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