W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2003

RE: Some comments on 27 June 2003 Web Arch WD

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:47:37 -0700
To: "'Jonathan Borden'" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <031901c347cc$23cbb8c0$fefb000a@beasys.com>

I'm muddled on this.  I can see pros and cons for having different terms for
the resource and the representation.  I think the 80/20 point is to call
them the same thing, though for completeness I expect that people would want
to differentiate.

I feel httprange-14 footsteps...

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Borden
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 9:25 AM
> To: David Orchard; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Some comments on 27 June 2003 Web Arch WD
>
>
>
> David Orchard wrote:
>
> ...
> > 3.3.2
> > "Authors and applications can use URIs uniformly to
> identify different
> > resources on the Web" -> "Authors and applications can use
> URIs uniformly
> to
> > identify different resources".
> >
> > 3.3.3
> > "The simplest way to achieve this is for the namespace name
> to be an HTTP
> > URI which may be dereferenced to access this material. The resource
> > identified by such a URI is called a "namespace document."  ->
> > "The simplest way to achieve this is to provide a resource, called a
> > "namespace document", that is identified by a dereferencable URI."
> >
>
> An example of the URI identification/representation bug.
>
> How about: "The resource identified by the URI is called a
> namespace. An
> HTTP dereferencable human readable _representation_ of a
> namespace is called
> a 'namespace document.'"
>

<snip/>
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 12:48:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:38 UTC