- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:24:17 +0200
- To: Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@gmail.com>
- Cc: トーレ エリクソン <tore.eriksson@po.rd.taisho.co.jp>, Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, www-tag@w3.org
2012/3/28 Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@gmail.com>: > We agree completely. An img/jpeg octet stream can be a used as a > representation of the traffic cop, as well as the photo. > Representations are reusable. Right, I do think this is the key aspect here. It's easy to lose the bits-on-othe-wire implications in all the philosophy. (Having said that I'm going to have to re-read Pat's response a few times before I'm entirely comfortable there :) >> So I'd suggest a 200 would be legitimate for a description (in >> addition to what we normally refer to as content), because >> descriptions can be treated as representations. > > Sure, that was my initial way of thinking of the problem, but other > people vehemently opposed that an img/jpeg octet stream could be a > direct representation of a human. Switching to pure description-based > semantics neutralizes this opposition. The end result is the same > though. Ah, ok. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com http://webbeep.it - text to tones and back again
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 12:24:50 UTC