- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:16:20 -0400
- To: wangxiao@musc.edu
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, Jonathan A Rees <jar@mumble.net>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, W3C-TAG Group WG <www-tag@w3.org>
Xiaoshu Wang writes: > Hmm.. not really. I think AWWW's opinion is that for some resource, > i.e., the information resource, T=R. If that were the case, then why would we allow content negotiation based on media-type, language (French, English, Chinese, etc.)? Furthermore, I think it's pretty well accepted that a 200 is an acceptable status code for a GET to a clock resource. With such a resource we can see that the same URI (http://example.com/clock) returns different representations each time it's accessed. I find that a useful example to motivate the distinction between an information resource and its representation(s). Furthermore, to reiterate the point about content negotiation, I think it would be quite acceptable for that clock to return a string like "10:03 AM EDT October 23, 2007" if asked for text/plain, but to return the image of a suitable clock face if asked for image/jpeg. All of these illustrate the lack of one-to-one relationship between an information resource and its representations, at least in the general case. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 14:15:03 UTC