I agree. The arch was trapped in the original terminology used to describe URLs. It didn't prove to be robust past the application to dereferencing. Terms like 'information resource' are glue to improve the range of word senses. There's not supposed to be anything weird or surprising in physics, but the terminology and the metaphorical examples lead to much spookiness. One gets used to it. len From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke > So after much discussion, we are back to the beginning, that is, > dereferencing a URI returns a document (aka, bits on the wire) > or doesn't? Of course. > Something of an anti-climax. There's not supposed to be anything weird or surprising in WebArch. It was supposed to be just writing down stuff that was obvious to folks who knew how the Web was supposed to work. Turned out to be less obvious than expected on a few points. Getting it back to obvious is Good Thing. -- sandroReceived on Wednesday, 8 September 2004 20:55:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:55:54 GMT