Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Unless you can come up with a *new* argument that is not already > found in one of the following threads > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0150.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Oct/0071.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0092.html I completely agree with you on all points. And I sincerely wish that is also a consensus among TAG members and web community in general. If so, I wish them to be included in the writing of AWWW and httpRange-14. If not, which I feel is the case, at least from the feedback on this thread and other mailing list, it is not a waste of time. There is the need to continue push this understanding to become a consensus until no question like "is this or that an information resource?" is asked and until no one will say that according to httpRange-14, that "http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/PatHayes" is wrong. Regards, XiaoshuReceived on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 11:19:27 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:56:10 GMT