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, 29 Apr 2010 01:31:43 -0700
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <4DAB8D3A-5ECE-4835-97C3-CCE3B91D92BB@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Apr 29, 2010, at 1:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 08.04.2010 10:56, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> ...
>>> If the term "resource" is used sometimes for "resource", and  
>>> sometimes for
>>> "representation" then Dan's proposed text should be modified to  
>>> address this.
>> The term "resource" is never used for "representation", but it is
>> sometimes used for other purposes altogether, like a file that has no
>> corresponding URL (and thus isn't a "representation" of a  
>> "resource" in
>> the HTTP sense), or more generally, to refer to supplies of memory,
>> bandwidth, storage space, and the like.
>> ...
> I'm confused. The spec now says:
> "What some specifications, in particular the HTTP and URI  
> specifications, refer to as a representation is referred to in this  
> specification as a resource. [HTTP] [RFC3986]"
> That seems to be in conflict with what Ian said in his email.

In conflict in what way? This is the text that Ian proposed originally:

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

>>> 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>

> I also note that the current text got objections from both Roy and  
> me, and Dan was proposing to make the citations more specific (which  
> I supported).

What we're looking for now (were, actually, the deadline has now  
passed) is for people who object to closing the issue without  
prejudice, rather than people who object to the details of the text.  
As acknowledged in the CfC, we know some people would like more  
extensive changes, but we believe there has been more than adequate  
time to express other points of view in the form of a Change Proposal.

> I believe this needs more work.

Do you object to the Call for Consensus to close this issue without  
prejudice? If so, are you volunteering to do the work you think is  

Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 08:32:18 UTC

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