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

Re: Commentary on 15 Nov Arch Doc WD

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:10:12 -0500
Message-ID: <3DEFDCD4.5060006@w3.org>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
CC: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>

Hi Tim,

Thanks for these comments. I'm working on a new draft, which
should include the changes indicated below.

  - Ian

Tim Bray wrote:
> 
> 1. In the principles, the distinction between "constraints", 
> "practices", and "principles" still needs work.  Perhaps we can move 
> simply to "practices" and "principles" - it's really unclear that "Use 
> URIs" is really different in its nature from a bunch of things labeled 
> "practices".

I haven't made any changes here; awaiting new experience.

> 2. The principles in 2.2.4 and 2.2.5 are really the same principle.  The 
> explanatory text in 2.2.5 is just a rehash of the Moby Dick example.

I've deleted 2.2.5 and added the following para to 2.2.4:

   Ambiguous descriptions of what a URI identifies increase the
   likelihood that two parties will think the same URI identifies
   different resources, and thus that the parties will use the URI
   inconsistently. This can be costly, as in the case of two
   databases in which the same URI is used inconsistently; merging
   the two databases might lead to confusion or errors. In this
   document, we do not talk about "the meaning of a URI," only the
   meaning of the resource identified by a URI. Although people
   commonly ascribe meaning to resources based on their experience
   with those resources, that "meaning through use" is not the
   <em>authoritative</em> meaning.  As stated above, the
   authoritative meaning of a resource is established by following
   specifications.

> 3. The list in 2.5 seems awfully redundant. I suspect it could be recast 
> from a list into a paragraph of carefull-written prose and be just as 
> useful.

I've deleted 2.5 and moved some of that information to other sections.

> 4. 3.3.1 needs to reference the IETF use-of-XML which is now a 
> published, stable Best Practice and a damn fine piece of work.

Added.

> 5. I'm highly unconvinced of that seciton 5 needs to exist.  I think the 
> 3-legged basic structure is very sound and has grown better with the 
> recent change to Identificaiton/Representation/Interaction nomenclature. 
>  I think we should make a serious effort to take something (for example 
> information hiding) and work into this 3-legged structure.

No change for now.


-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 18:10:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:14 GMT