W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2002

[Publication] 26 August draft of Arch Doc available

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 19:18:17 -0400
Message-ID: <3D6965B9.2060600@w3.org>
To: www-tag@w3.org

Hello,

Thanks to everyone who commented on the 13 August
Arch Document [0]. The 26 August draft [1] (it's still
25 August where I am):

    [0] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0813-archdoc
    [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/0826-archdoc

  1) Introduces sections 1.1 (structure, conventions) and 1.2
     (audience). These will be fleshed out with experience.

  2) Lists the principles in section 1.4, per Stuart's request.

  3) Incorporates many suggestions from DanC, Stuart, Paul,
     Mark Nottingham, Noah Mendelsohn, and Larry Masinter, and
     our resolutions from the 19 August teleconference [2].

     [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/08/19-tag-summary

     In particular, DanC's 2 and 2.1 have been incorporated,
     with some edits. Note in particular:


      "URIs and absolute URI references identify Web resources. The
       principles in this document are expressed in terms of absolute
       URI references.

       Open: While people agree that URIs identify resources (per RFC
       2396 [RFC2396]), there is not yet consensus that absolute URI
       references with fragment identifies may be used to identify
       resources. Some people contend that an absolute URI reference
       with a fragment identifier identifies a portion of a
       representation."

     Section 2.2 (Operations on URIs) attempts to say that in a world
     where we consider abs URI refs and URIs to identify resources,
     there are some pros and cons for the choice. Your help expanding
     the list of pros and cons welcome.

  4) Section 2.2.1 includes a new example showing the interpretation
     of a series of specifications to interact with a resource.

  5) I still like the list of generalities in section 2.3, though
     someone suggested that we clarify which points applied to
     some schemes and which applied to all schemes.

     Ultimately, I don't care that these points remain in a single
     list, but we encounter these points frequently and I think
     they should be made in the document.

  6) Dan's comment on "public use of unregistered schemes" has
     been moved to a principle. Does that seem reasonable?

  _ Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Sunday, 25 August 2002 19:22:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:10 GMT