Re: Change Proposal for HttpRange-14

On 26/03/12 16:05, Tom Heath wrote:
> On 23 March 2012 15:35, Steve Harris<steve.harris@garlik.com>  wrote:
>> On 23 Mar 2012, at 14:05, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
>>> 2012/3/23 Melvin Carvalho<melvincarvalho@gmail.com>:
>>>> I dont think, even the wildest optimist, could have predicted the success of
>>>> the current architecture (both pre and post HR14).
>>>
>>> The votes of confidence are interesting to me, as I have not been
>>> hearing them previously. It does appear we have a divided community,
>>> with some voices feeling that 303 will be the death of linked data,
>>> and others saying hash and 303 are working well. Where the center of
>>> gravity lies, I have no way of telling (and perhaps it's not important
>>> as long as any disagreement, or even ignorance, remains). As Larry
>>> Masinter said at the last TAG telcon, things do not seem to be
>>> converging.
>>
>> I'm sure many people are just deeply bored of this discussion.
>
> No offense intended to Jeni and others who are working hard on this,
> but *amen*, with bells on!

No argument.

> One of the things that bothers me most about the many years worth of
> httpRange-14 discussions (and the implications that HR14 is
> partly/heavily/solely to blame for slowing adoption of Linked Data) is
> the almost complete lack of hard data being used to inform the
> discussions. For a community populated heavily with scientists I find
> that pretty tragic.

The primary reason for having put my name to the proposal was that I 
personally been adversely affected. I have been involved in client 
discussions that have been derailed by someone bringing up httprange-14. 
I have been in discussions with clients where 303s are not acceptable 
(thanks to CDN behaviour). I have both received and (sadly) sent out 
data that is broken and caused errors due to cut/paste from the browser 
bar thanks to httprange-14.

My anecdotal evidence is that the nature of the recurrent discussion can 
create or reinforce an impression of the area being too academic, not 
ready for practical use.

I don't claim that httprange-14 is solely or substantially to blame for 
holding back linked data.  I don't claim that my personal experience is 
necessarily widespread or representative. There is no science on offer 
here, move on.

But ... if, with the current TAG process, there is a chance of a new 
resolution that reduces any of these problems then it is worth a tiny 
bit of effort. If there is a chance the new resolution will be so good 
as to damp down this permathread then it is worth more effort. If it 
kills the permathread completely then I owe someone at least a crate of 
beer.

Dave

Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 15:51:43 UTC