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

Re: LRDD Update (Resource Descriptor Discovery) and Proposed Changes

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:45:27 -0400
Message-ID: <760bcb2a0906271545v4d86ac26oe01cf10cce6fad0@mail.gmail.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
[less cc:]

Tracker, I write this email primarily for you. This whole thread is
about ISSUE-53 [1]. Current LRDD discussion bears on ISSUE-62 [2].

Xiaoshu, you're essentially pressing the TAG again to make a formal
statement on recommended use of conneg, as Michael Hausenblas did in
February [3]. I'm sorry that this has fallen to the periphery of the
TAG business heap. The best I can do now is to point you to the advice
[4] that we gave to the Cool URIs for the Semweb editors, which agrees
with Eran's reading.

Jonathan

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/53
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Feb/0074.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/02/28-minutes#item01

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Xiaoshu Wang<wangxiao@musc.edu> wrote:
> Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Xiaoshu Wang [mailto:wangxiao@musc.edu]
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 4:17 PM
>>>
>>> Now, given one information, you are proposing three mechanisms to
>>> specify it.  Isn't it obvious that something is *fundamentally* wrong
>>> about the proposal?
>>>
>>
>> No. That's like saying an HTML document should never repeat any of the
>> links provided in the HTTP header, etc.
>
> Of course, it shouldn't.  In fact, no HTTP header should use URI except the
> Content-type, which unfortunately is not defined in this way.
>
>> The reality is that there isn't any single solution that satisfies all the
>> use cases we have. After over a year of debating it, this combination of
>> three methods is the best we have come up with, and it works fine. Is it a
>> beautiful solution with clean architecture? No. But it is the only solution
>> we can deploy today and expect people to use.
>>
>
> Define your "fineness"?  Making something works does not mean solving the
> desired problem.  If you know the solution is not clean, you should not that
> it should not be proposed at this level because it will have long term
> effects.
>>
>> If you read the proposal, it clearly goes through the list of available
>> methods and states why this approach was chosen.
>>
>
> Nope.  Your evaluation on content negotiation is very vague and, in my
> opinion, partial.
>
> Xiaoshu
>>
>> EHL
Received on Saturday, 27 June 2009 22:46:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:14 GMT