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: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 21:31:14 +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: <45D2FBFE-21AF-4CAF-A872-F8A7946F0D47@cyganiak.de>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>


On 6 Apr 2008, at 19:41, 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?
>
> Nope, sorry - that's why I called it a guess. I know of people using  
> URIs to name non-IRs who either disagree with httpRange-14, or do  
> not know about it, or cannot arrange for 303s, so there is some  
> noncompliance out there.  Even if penetration is prettty high, a few  
> bad apples will spoil the bunch, in situations where it matters (not  
> that I know what those are, but I assume they exist).

I call FUD. Who are those people you know? Anyone else except Pat  
Hayes and the Dublin Core folks?

Care to point to a bunch of URIs that deliver RDF and clearly violate  
httpRange-14? I'm keeping my eyes open for those and I don't see many.

You say that a few bad apples will spoil the broth. Why do you think  
so? The Web doesn't break just because a few people don't follow  
standards.

> Of course it would be delightful if there were perfect compliance.

It would be delightful if there was a solid consensus around  
httpRange-14. Perfect compliance is of course neither realistic nor  
required nor important.

Richard
Received on Sunday, 6 April 2008 20:31:54 GMT

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