- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 06:56:23 +0200
- To: "www-tag@w3.org"@w3.org
Hello , Comments on http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/webarchWithIssues issue schema13: [4.2] Overly simplifies a complex problem I can only agree, WebArch over simplifies the finding and does not present the good practice note as a trade off or something to balance with other, perhaps conflicting, design goals. >> "fallback behaviour" is semantically equivalent to "silently >> handling errors" and the Web architecture document is thus >> self-contradictory. Yes. Need to distinguish between specifications which are reusable components, and (profiles of or groups of) specifications which are already combined ready for use. issue diwg4: Suggest discussion of the limitations of Internet media types as the prime mechanism for selecting between different representations of a resource. Is that in the context of versioning (which does exist, see the registration for image/cgm) or the limitation of conneg using only media types (jpeg is better than png for photos, png is better than jpeg for screenshots, hmm qs factors, what ya gonna do) But yes, since WebArch really emphasizes media types its worth mentioning their limitations. ssue msm14: WD-webarch-20031209, Section 4.2.2, Story: Allowing extra attributes does change the conformance of existing data Not really, given that in the story they deliberately chose that extensibility policy. The point is valid in general but not for this particular story. issue schema14: [4.2.3] Must * rules in instance v. documentation Yes, in particular for the case where the must* is in an external schema that need not be fetched, or a human readable document; this requires out of band communication. Having it in the instance risks that people can redeclare something required to be optional or otherwise hack around assumptions. Tradeoffs both ways. issue manola30: Difference between "setting expectations" and "specifying"? Yes, its wooly language. All instances of "set expectations" could be changed to "specify", I think. issue schema15: [4.2.4] SOAP message cannot include JPEG Yes; regardless of what MIFFY/MTOM might do, a quick s/JPEG/SVG would make the statement true. issue klyne19: Unclear statement about mixing RDF vocabularies "RDF allows well-defined mixing of vocabularies, and allows text and XML to be used as a data type values within a statement having clearly defined semantics. I couldn't figure precisely what this was trying to say." Me either. (Either 'as data type values' or 'as a data type value', too). But see the next issue issue klyne20: Say something about relationship between Hypertext Web and Semantic Web? proposal raised 2004-03-05 So thr SW uses the 'Hypertext Web' or parts therof to make statements about. But it also makes astatement about cars, and things, so that boild down to 'the semantic Web makes statements' or 'the Semantic Web is about semantics' (tautolohy) or 'the non-SW has no semantics' (not true either. So okay say something, but what? SW is at a different level of abstraction, layered on top? issue manola31: Questions about RDF, text, XML mixing "What does "having clearly defined semantics" modify? Should this be "...within statements having clearly defined semantics"?" Yes issue clark6: Separating Presentation From Content Absolutely. Again the finding conveys this trade off but WebArch over simolifies and presents as a single choice without trade-offs. issue gilman1: 'legal requirement' as justification for 'particular presentation' misses 'leading Web to highest' mark This is another occurrence of meta-issue-1 "its a trade off,not clear cut". issue klyne21: Add statement about scalability concerns Good point, scalability in for example client side vs server side imagemaps. Pushing computation to the client increases server throughput. issue clark4a: Hypertext Good Practice Redundancies No, these are not equivalent. There have been hypertext systems that allowed only linking within a small set of documents, and SGML allowed within-document linking (id/idref) without actually being a hypertext system. The second good practice note is a scalability note, and is needed. However, it should be broadened not only to hypertext links but other sorts of links as well. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2004 00:56:26 UTC