- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 15:25:45 -0500
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
I guess no news is good news? 8-) Some minor comments; - "Resource Descriptions" principle. Saying "important resources (for example, Internet protocol parameters)" makes it sound like it's only for *really* important resources. I suggest removing the example. - 2.1, second sentence. "addressable by URI" seems like a remnant from a previous edit, as it refers to the "shared information space" itself. - 2.2.2, point 3 of list. Missing "of" in "representation a resource". - 2.2.2 point 3 of list. "Section 17.4" refers to SVG 1.1's XLink section. SVG 1.0's is 17.1. - 2.2.3, second last paragraph. I'd like to expand the example, since this is a very important point. I suggest that paragraph say; "HTTP [RFC2616] has been designed to help site managers maintain the relationship between a URI and a resource. For example, HTTP redirection (via some of the 3xx response codes) permits servers to tell clients about the new location of any resource which moved. In addition, content negotiation also helps, as a site manager would not be required to define new URIs for each new format that is supported, as would be the case with protocols that don't support content negotiation, such as FTP. I'll send along more substantitive comments separately. Though I've only got one right now, I reserve the right to find more 8-). MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 15:23:27 UTC