W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Comments on "Providing and Discovering Definitions of URIs"

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:50:08 -0500
To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1329403808.2250.164644.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 08:46 -0500, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
> [ . . . ] I may do another round of edits to
> "Providing" but I will spend most of my allocated time on
> "Understanding" and not on its supporting material - as I say it's at
> a point of diminishing returns. I'm sorry if my last request for
> review was misleading on this account.

I am okay with leaving the "Providing" document as is, with three small
but important exceptions, since that document is explicitly held out as
providing the criteria on which httpRange-14 change proposals will be
judged:
[[
Change proposals should address relevant questions and issues presented
in "Providing and discovering definitions of URIs" which is a review of
the design space. Proposals may be based on material in this document if
desired. Proposals that in the editor's or TAG's judgment do not address
points in this document when appropriate will be returned for revision.
]]

The exceptions are:

1. In the "Desiderata" section
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/20120202/#desiderata
the "Uniform" criterion needs to be modified to talk only about
*obtaining* the URI definition (or "documentation") -- not its
"meaning".  This is a very easy fix, and I have already suggested
alternate text.

2. Also in the "Desiderata" section, the "Compatible with inference"
section needs to be removed or drastically clarified.  At present I
honestly have no idea what you intended to mean by it, so I cannot yet
make any useful suggestions for rewording it.  Again, please either try
to explain what you mean by that criterion, so that I or others can help
you reword it in a way that others can understand, or remove it
entirely.

3. I really think the CC license example that you described elsewhere
should be included.  It is the best example I have seen that concretely
demonstrates the actual harm caused when different parties make
different assumptions about what URI definition discovery convention
will be used.  This is important because the vast majority of the debate
around these issues has been in the abstract, and it is very hard for
scruffy practitioners who are just trying to get stuff done to relate to
abstract arguments.



-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 14:50:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:45 GMT