W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2009

Re: usage of 'resource' vs 'representation' in HTML 5, CSS, HTML 4, SVG, ...

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:12:07 +0100
Message-ID: <4B20E597.2020206@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: www-archive@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote:
>> The person is a resource. The player identified by Green is a resource. 
>> They are not necessarily the same.
> 
> The player identified by green is the person.

It could be a team as well, with changing membership. It's not that simple.

>>> rules it refers to "the green player", just like we refer to "the 
>>> http://google.com/ page", without meaning a particular bag of bits. 
>>> Yet
>> In this case, "we" excludes me. When I say that, I do *not* refer to a 
>> particular bag of bits.
> 
> I think you misread what I wrote, or objected to the wrong part of what I 
> wrote, because your objection here doesn't make sense (you're denying what 
> I said and then saying exactly what I said).

I'm just saying that when you say "we" it doesn't include all of us.

>> If you want to maintain the notion of "a resource is a bag of bits" it 
>> would be helpful if you'd describe how this definition helps in 
>> explaining when you POST to an HTTP resource.
> 
> It doesn't. You don't POST to an HTTP resource. You POST to an HTTP 

Well, we continue to disagree on that terminology.

> server, giving it a path name, headers, and an entity body, and it returns 
> a resource. This use of the term leads to a far more straightforward 

Actually, it doesn't return a resource.

> understanding of the process, as it is grounded in concrete interactions 
> rather than being based on abstract concepts that regular people don't 
> ever knowingly refer to.

I do not think "regular" (non-IT) people are interested in this 
discussion anyway.

> To continue the analogy of the game: when you give points to a player, 
> you're giving the points to the actual person, not to an abstract concept. 

Nope.

> It isn't helpful to talk about giving points to the abstract concept of 
> the green player as distinct from the person who is the green player.

It is, for instance, when person A playing "green" needs to leave during 
the game, and person B takes over.

That distinction may not be important most of the time, but that doesn't 
mean it doesn't exist. Likewise, simplifying terminology so that edge 
cases aren't covered anymore maybe harmless in many cases, but causes 
confusion when writing specs.

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 12:12:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:28 GMT