Re: Uniform access to descriptions

Eric J. Bowman wrote:
> Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
>   
>> Eric, can you try to read the latest threads on TAG list and
>> understand what is at debate here?
>>
>>     
>
> Why would you assume that I haven't, or don't?
>   
Because you know that I oppose the notion of IR and have a 
/misunderstood/ or broader sense of "awww:resource", then I don't know 
why you said: "In such a case, your variant representations are not 
awww:resources or even Information Resources ..."  Not in such a case, 
in all my cases, it is like that.


>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Apr/0139.html.  And 
>> http://dfdf.inesc-id.pt/tr/web-arch is my analysis on the issue last 
>> November.   But many other latest posting would be helpful too.  (Not
>> to convince you but just want us to start more meaningful discussion
>> on equal footing, O.K.)
>>
>>     
>
> I have read your references.  I disagree with your position in its
> particulars, but in a larger sense I agree with the notion of using
> content negotiation.  I have posted how I believe content negotiation
> and 303 redirects may be used more properly for your ends, than the
> method you have suggested.
>
>   
>> You might have read.  I make the above suggestion is by guessing from 
>> your wording in this sentence "In such a case, your variant 
>> representations are not awww:resources or even Information Resources 
>> ...".  Because I believe if you do read the past two or three weeks
>> of postings, you should know how *inappropriate* (not a true or false 
>> issue) to use awww:resources and IR as a criteria here.
>>
>>     
>
> Which does not change the fact that you're using a fringe case to make
> your point, and said fringe case goes against proper Web architecture,
> which sorta means referring to Web architecture regardless of the
> delicate sensibilities of anyone on this list.
>
> -Eric
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 00:59:31 UTC