W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Proposed AWWW erratum on "information resources" [was Re: Fwd: Splitting vs. Interpreting]

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:11:32 +0100
Message-ID: <b6bb4d890907131111t63ca04fcs98ead09f00d8289e@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 3:48 PM, David Booth<david@dbooth.org> wrote:

[On servers working in the way you described:]

> They all work in this way, though not necessarily using that
> terminology.  That's just the terminology chosen by AWWW
> to describe, at an abstract level, what happens.

Okay, so AWWW is an abstraction of web practice. You say that it's
describing what happens, so I presume you think that there's a high
degree of fidelity there? What makes you think that?

Can you not imagine different types or instances of abstractions that
have a higher degree of fidelity to current practice?

> Trying to change the terminology beyond that might be useful,
> but it would be a much bigger undertaking and is outside the
> scope of my suggestion.

If you want to correct the definition of "information resource", then
nothing's out of scope which deals with correcting that definition.
What if that's a bigger task than you think?

Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Monday, 13 July 2009 18:12:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:03 UTC