- From: Tom Worthington <tomw99@fastmail.fm>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:22:15 +1100
- To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
This is in response to a request for comments on "The Architecture of the World Wide Web" Working Draft 9 December 2003 <http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/>. The document could be split into a smaller one which just describes the architecture and a larger one which gives the explanation and justification. The language used could be simplified up to make the document shorter and easier to understand. For example it is not necessary to refer to "this travel scenario" within the example used, as the reader will see that from the context. There is no reason to detail more than once that a request will return a "representation of the resource". Much of the justification for the architecture in the document is difficult to understand on its own. It appears to be a byproduct of an internal W3C debate over where the web should go. It would be better if that debate happened outside the standards-type document. However, the real test of such a document is how useful it is in practice. As an example in 2003 I taught students at the Australian National University how to design iMode web pages <http://www.tomw.net.au/2004/wd.html#L1198>. In 2004 I was thinking of showing them how to do XHTML-MP web pages. Will the "The Architecture of the World Wide Web" help decide if XHTML-MP is a useful technology? Will it help in designing better wireless web technology? Tom Worthington FACS tom.worthington@tomw.net.au Ph: 0419 496150 Director, Tomw Communications Pty Ltd ABN: 17 088 714 309 http://www.tomw.net.au PO Box 13, Belconnen ACT 2617 Visiting Fellow, Computer Science, Australian National University Publications Director, Australian Computer Society
Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2003 18:41:08 UTC