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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:47:55 +0200
Message-ID: <4BD947BB.1060306@gmx.de>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
On 29.04.2010 10:31, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 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>

Yes, but in the mail I quoted he said:

> 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.
> ...

So what is it?

> ...
> 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 needed?
> ...

Yes, I do object. Can we please discuss the contradiction between what 
Ian said and what the spec now says and not pretend we're done?

And no, at this time I'm not volunteering to write a CP; I'd like to see 
the WG actually *discuss* this.

Ian, could you please help clarifying? Did you change your mind between 
writing that mail, and changing the spec?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 08:48:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:17 UTC