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

Re: Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 01:43:20 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0907152243p6ac3d2e0y5788487f0fe93f57@mail.gmail.com>
To: Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, www-tag@w3.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org> wrote:
> That is my point of argument.  What is this "close-to-identical" (the fidelity as in this Sotomayor's defense) is non-sense.  The "fidelity" is always be interpreted by some one or some group.  There is no escape of this "personal" context.   Take your "high resolution"as an example, how do you know if I am not wanting the high resolution in terms of the molecular structure of that book, instead of its content or image? You must define your 'resolution' before making it high.  You cannot say compare two things without setting the criteria of comparison.  In other word, you cannot say which thing is a better awww:representation better than the other.

We are in a bit of trouble, then, unless we remove whatever
corresponds to rfc2616 section
3.9: 'Quality Values' from the new spec. That section presumes that it
is indeed possible to make assessments of similarity/quality (or
relative degradation) of a representation as compared to a resource.

BTW, this wouldn't be semantics creeping into the nice neat
specification, would it?

Here is what I expect the form of the answer will be, given the
previous parts of this conversation. The words "quality" and
"degradation" are not what you and I mean by "quality" (closest
wordnet http://www.golovchenko.org/cgi-bin/wnsearch?q=quality#2n) and
"degradation" (closes wordnet sense, nominalization of
http://www.golovchenko.org/cgi-bin/wnsearch?q=degrade#3v). They are
awww:quality and awww:degradation, terms which allow for some scale
along which to order representations, the exact nature of such
ordering this spec need not be concerned with.


(ietf-http-wg cc removed per request of Mark)
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2009 05:44:16 UTC

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