W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2013

Re: AWWW second edition, maybe -- terminology

From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:59:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGnGFMJ1wdEh_zBLxK_htoRtsbWgV5yL0HRE7Z9AOqA0X8tP3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>wrote:

> Henry Thompson wrote:
> > One example: At the f2f, Tim Berners-Lee mentioned that he would
> > prefer to drop all use of the word 'resource'.
> Maybe, but I note that even the proposed "bis" version of HTTP continues
> to emphasize use of the term resource. It seems to me that the TAG's role
> should be to unify, and then help explain the proper use of terminology
> relating to Web architecture. If we can get RFC 2616 and other pertinent
> specifications aligned on some new terminology, I might be in favor. On the
> other hand, I don't see how the TAG helps to avoid confusion if it fails to
> use/explain the terminology of the pertinent specifications, in this case
> for HTTP.

If there is terminology that *cannot* be explained and whose use inexorably
leads to confusion, then the TAG can help lead the community away from
confusion simply by being careful to avoid use of that terminology.


> [1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/**HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-**
> lafon-rfc2616bis-03.html#the.**resource.identified.by.a.**request<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03.html#the.resource.identified.by.a.request>
> On 6/7/2013 7:48 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>> Futher to discussion at the recent f2f, and With a lot of help from
>> Marcos and Yves, we have a staging area on GitHub [1] for a _possible_
>> second edition [2] of AWWW [3].  I emphasise that the TAG have _not_
>> yet decided to do this, rather we are _considering_ it.  I have said
>> I'll consider trying to edit a new edition _provided_ we can satisfy
>> ourselves that the scope of the effort can be effectively limited.
>> Of the various wedges whose thin edges we can anticipate threatening
>> to turn into dangerous scope-creep, terminology is definitely high on
>> the list.
>> One example: At the f2f, Tim Berners-Lee mentioned that he would
>> prefer to drop all use of the word 'resource'.  I too would like to do
>> this, and indeed I recently posted [2] to this list a pointer to a
>> talk I gave which introduces an approach to the httpRange-14 issue
>> which avoids the word.
>> To try to take this conversation forward, [1][2] contain (with diffs
>> highlighted) a new Abstract, which removes 'resource', and introduces
>> the 'active' aspect of the Web, as follows:
>>    The World Wide Web uses relatively simple technologies with
>>    sufficient scalability, efficiency and utility that they have
>>    resulted in a remarkable interconnected space of information and
>>    services, growing across languages, cultures and media. In an effort
>>    to preserve these properties of the space as the technologies
>>    evolve, this architecture document discusses the core design
>>    components of the Web. They are identification of information and
>>    services, representation of information state and service requests,
>>    and the protocols that support the interaction between agents in the
>>    space. We relate core design components, constraints, and good
>>    practices to the principles and properties they support.
>> Does this look like the kind of direction we'd like to move in?
>> ht
>> [1] https://github.com/w3ctag/**webarch<https://github.com/w3ctag/webarch>
>> [2] http://w3ctag.github.io/**webarch/ <http://w3ctag.github.io/webarch/>
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
>> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/www-tag/2013May/0056.**html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013May/0056.html>
Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 14:59:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:20 UTC