W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > March 2008

Re: Proposed rewrite for section 3.1

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:48:04 -0400
Message-Id: <8C82EDC0-A142-4805-B4E7-77FB8941D35E@creativecommons.org>
Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, www-tag@w3.org, W3C SWEO IG <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>
To: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>


On Mar 21, 2008, at 2:04 AM, Leo Sauermann wrote:
> It is important to understand that using URIs, it is possible to  
> identify both a thing (which exists outside of the web) and a web  
> document describing the thing.

I think you should say "which may exist" instead of "which exists",  
as web documents are legitimate things and may themselves have  
descriptions. (I think Tim said this on the call.) It's important at  
each step to be consistent with the idea that there are lots of  
things, and some but not all of those things are web documents.

> In HTTP, a 200 response code should be sent when a Web document has  
> been accessed, a different setup is needed ...

I think you are missing a word here, perhaps "because": "In HTTP,  
because a 200 response code..."

Best
Jonathan
Received on Friday, 21 March 2008 12:48:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 March 2008 12:48:49 GMT