W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Resources and URIs

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 23 Apr 2003 09:01:46 -0500
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, uri@w3c.org
Message-Id: <1051106505.28482.39.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 00:09, pat hayes wrote: 
> > Roy T. Fielding wrote: 
> > > If you have suggested wording to change, then please suggest it.
> > > If you don't, then this is a redundant discussion and I have
> > > already
> > > answered it before: 
> > I have a suggested wording change, because while I have been largely
> > unimpressed by the philosophical jargon being thrown around here
> > recently 
> 
> 
> It is sad when a carefully worded request for clarification can be
> dismissed as "philosophical jargon", but let it pass.

However carefully worded, it didn't include the magic
"please change X to Y in the text" or even
"text like ABC is more clear to me; is it OK to
other folks?"

It really would be most constructive if you'd suggest
alternative text for the spec. If you can see
more than one interpretation, suggest text for each
and see which one gets more support. Or if you
prefer one interpretation, suggest text to support
that.

Neither Roy nor anybody else is in a good position
to answer the sort of clarification questions you're
asking. Roy knows a little bit about the positions
of some of the stakeholders, but he's not in a position
to speak for all of them.

The only way I can see making progress, at this
point in this 10 year old conversation, is that
somebody suggests text and the folks who don't like
it say so.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 10:01:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:31 GMT