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

Re: Some comments on 27 June 2003 Web Arch WD

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:00:31 -0400
Message-ID: <0c4f01c347de$b6b80190$b6f5d3ce@svhs.local>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

David Orchard wrote:
>
> 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...
>

This is httpRange-14 knee deep in mud. It is this particular issue that made
up my mind about httpRange-14 i.e. if HTTP URIs may only identify network
documents, then are you saying that http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema is a
'network document'? ... yes I know the 'conceptual work' argument but I
maintain that the difference between "XML Schema" and "the XML Schema
specification" is the same as the difference between an XML Namespace and
its namespace document.

80/20? that seems like saying that if we say 0 = 1 = 2, then there are 8
numbers between 0 -> 9 i.e. 80% of the actual number. Lite but less filling
:-)))

Jonathan
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 15:00:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:18 GMT