W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2004

RE: review Identification 8Jun

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:58:15 +0100
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E80803615E68@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

Hello Mark,

You'll find more mention of RFC2119 imperatives in the record of our
November F2F [1]. Bascially we questioned, apparently without resolution,
whether we should be using them at all.

Stuart

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/11/15-tag-summary.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] 
> On Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: 28 June 2004 15:12
> To: Dan Connolly
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: review Identification 8Jun
> 
> 
> This seems closely related to a previous issue I raised 
> regarding the use of RFC 2119 (in which I explicitly called 
> out the URI opacity good practice note as an example);
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0191.html
> 
> I thought this had been resolved (though it doesn't appear 
> that way now), but I can't recall what the resolution was.  
> My apologies for that.
> 
> The last mention of this I could find is;
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Nov/0042.html
> 
> But I don't believe that the opacity issue is a show stopper.
> 
> Mark.
> 
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 06:44:30AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > 
> > re http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040608/
> > 
> > I have a bunch of editorial suggestions; I sent those to Ian 
> > separately (with copy to www-archive). Substantively...
> > 
> > I had some reservations about this in 2.2:
> > 
> > "To keep communication costs down, by design a URI identifies one 
> > resource. Since the scope of a URI is global, the resource 
> identified 
> > by a URI does not depend on the context in which the URI appears."
> > 
> > but they're pretty much addressed by section 2.4. URI Overloading; 
> > perhaps a forward reference would help; I'm not sure. 
> Perhaps it's OK 
> > as is.
> > 
> > Then... er... conflict?
> > 
> >   Good practice: URI opacity
> > 
> >   Agents making use of URIs MUST NOT ...
> > 
> > How can a MUST NOT constraint be just good practice?
> > Either change the label to "Design Constraint" or change 
> the MUST NOT 
> > somehow.
> > 
> > 
> > I don't know if that conflict is a show-stopper or not; I'd like 
> > somebody else to give an opinion.
> > 
> > Otherwise, I give it a thumbs-up.
> 
> Mark.
> -- 
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
> 
>   Seeking work on large scale application/data integration projects
>   and/or the enabling infrastructure for same.
> 
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 12:58:42 GMT

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