W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2008

Re: reference needed - w3.org versioned documents

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 18:56:09 +0100
Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <99E76C89-6F8D-4768-AF16-F2573B03FBF6@cyganiak.de>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>


On 3 Apr 2008, at 18:02, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> The utility of httpRange-14 is significantly reduced as long as not  
> all minters of URIs for non-IRs adhere to it. I have no idea what  
> the penetration of httpRange-14 is, but my guess is that it is and  
> will remain low.

Any backup for that guess?

I'm pretty sure that everything shown in [1] adheres to it, and that's  
a quite significant part of the post-document Web.

Best,
Richard

[1] http://richard.cyganiak.de/2007/10/lod/


>
>
> The big win of httpRange-14, as I see it, is that it is a positive  
> affirmation of what was probably the intent of RFC2616, that a 200  
> response reflects some inherent connection (maybe even identity,  
> sometimes) between the information received and the referent of the  
> name (whatever it is, even if its identity is a secret), and not  
> just something that a third party has said about the referent. (The  
> correct thing to say here may be different, but that's OK, any kind  
> of positive statement is fine by me.) Even if it has no practical  
> effect, I think it's a bit of pedantry that provokes thought and  
> helps to influence people to be honest.
>
> My two cents.
> Jonathan
>
>
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 17:56:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:55 GMT