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

Comments on 26 August draft

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:11:22 -0700
Message-ID: <3D6A6F4A.70004@textuality.com>
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

This is getting there.  A large proportion of the following are calls 
for subtraction :)

===============================

Abstract: Lose all but first sentence of second paragraph.  Doesn't add 
value.

================================

1.2, ordered list: typo in #2, "devloping"

=================================

1.4 List of principles

a few got mangled in cut/paste or extraction: 2 & 5

Principle 4: I hate the usage "and/or", is there a better way?

===================================

2., first bullet list, 2nd bullet.  The FTP scheme is for directories 
too, not just file names.  Prob better to say "identifies data 
retrievable via the FTP protocol" which includes dir listings & so on

=================================

2. Para beginning "Note that while this composition is syntactically 
fully general..." - the usage "any deployed software or specifications." 
is awkward.

================================

2. Para beginning "To summarize,", might as well say "a character 
sequence beginning with a colon-delimited scheme name" (added 
'colon-delimited')

=================================

2. just before 2.1

I think we also need to acknowledge the existence of the term "URI 
reference" and say what 2396 says it means.

==================================

2.1 1st para

"The Web is more valuable for every resource in the space,..." awkward

=====================================

2.1 para beginning "Some resources do not have URIs".  First of all I 
don't agree, second what's the practical effect even if it's true, third 
denumerable means you *can't* give one to every real number.  Lose the 
paragraph, it adds no value

====================================

2.1 para beginning "Say something here a la what Tim Bray said".  No, 
just lose it, the territory is covered in here already.

===============================

2.2, para beginning "There may be applications..." typo "is expected the 
sole or"

===========================

2.2, last para.  Doesn't add anything, lose it.

==============================

2.2.1 first para "One interacts with a resource through 
representations...".  No, when I do an HTTP put to move a robot, no 
representations are involved.  One *retrieves* representations.

==================================

2.2.1 first para; lose the 2nd-last sentence, I have no idea what "full 
fidelity" means, doesn't add anything

=====================================

2.2.1, 1st para, last sentence.  Need introductory words in that a 
representation of a resource is often (usually? always?) accompanied by 
supplementary information defined per MIME [reference] called its 
media-type, and then proceed as written.

=========================================

2.2.1 para beginning "Interaction with a resource is governed by 
recursive application".  I don't think it's necessarily recursive at 
all; say successive not recursive.

============================================

2.2.1 principle "Valid use of an absolute URI reference"  I don't get 
it.  What is the useful effect of this principle?  The phrase "and 
following all other relevant protocol specifications" is totally 
inadmissable in this kind of a document, we need to be way more precise.

==========================================

2.3.1  There's a problem here.  As the section points out, 
file:/etc/passwd is highly context-sensitive, but then it says it's OK 
to use it if you're confident you're on the right operating system? 
I.e. you claim the concept of the resource is "this computer's password 
file"?  I think this sucks, and I think what we're trying to say is that 
you *shouldn't* use this kind of thing outside of a single-computer 
environemnt, i.e. you shouldn't EVER publish file:/ URIs on the Web

===========================================

2.4.1, second para.  Remove the parenthetized narrative "(e.g. 
historians..." from the 2nd para, doesn't add anything.

==============================================

2.4.22 last para, open issue deepLinking-25.  This is the wrong place in 
the doc for this, assuming we decide to say anything.  Should go 
somewhere in 2.2

==============================================

2.5 Fragment Identifiers, 2nd para, lose the comment about text/plain, 
who cares?

==============================================

3.2-3.5 The MVC paradigm is a currently-fashionable way of thinking 
about UI software engineering.  I happen to think it's highly overrated 
and unproven in practice, but that's not the point, the point is that 
the architecture of the Web doesn't depend on it in the slightest, so it 
has no place in this document.

Once we get a few more findings in place in section 3 I think a natural 
organization will fall out, so I wouldn't sweat this one too much in the 
short term, but I would take out the model/view/controller ideology.
Received on Monday, 26 August 2002 14:11:29 GMT

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