W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > January to March 2004

My comments on AWWW

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:33:43 -0500
To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040305093342.B31735@www.markbaker.ca>

First off, congratulations to Ian and the TAG on a job well done.  This
is a really excellent document that many will certainly find useful.

Here are my comments.

- in section 1, point 2 of the scenario, the application/xhtml+xml media
type is referenced though without "[RFC3236]" which is in the list of
references.

- the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph in section 2.5 says "For
robustness, Web architecture promotes independence between an identifier
and the identified resource.".  Should it not say "... the identified
resource and its representations."?

- I concur with the XML Schema WG's comment that the document is too
focused on browser-based interactions rather than on the more general
problem of automata interaction.  I understand the TAG's reluctance to
tackle the Web-vs-Web-services issue, but I think it's important for
AWWW to at least give the impression - if not outright say - that there
exists solutions to the automata integration problem within the
constraints/guidelines/principles of Web architecture.  Some other
examples in section 3 would help there.

- in section 2.4, after the Good practice guideline, the following
sentence is found; "When a software agent dereferences such a URI, if
what really happens is that HTTP GET is invoked to retrieve a
representation of the resource, then an "http" URI would have
sufficed.".  I wonder, is "what really happens" what is intended here?
The developer of a WEATHER protocol would assert that an HTTP GET is
not what is happening and therefore the weather scheme is appropriate.
Also, I think that "dereferences" is used here to mean "retrieve a
representation".  So I suggest that the sentence change to say; "When a
software agent retrieves a representation of such a URI, if HTTP GET
could reasonably have been used for that interaction, then an "http" URI
would have sufficed."

- for the references, 2396bis is up to rev4

- in section 4.5.2, I'm uncomfortable with the recommendation to use
XLink when using XML, except perhaps when authoring documents which are
intended for human consumption.  I believe that RDF/XML provides
superior linking capabilities for XML than does XLink, and IMO
preference should be given to it.  Alternately, listing both as options
would be adequate.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Friday, 5 March 2004 09:32:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:37:30 GMT