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

Re: AWWW second edition, maybe -- terminology

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:54:55 +0100
To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5b8v2lq5kg.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
Noah Mendelsohn writes:

> What we call things is important. Having conflicting terminology for
> key abstractions tends to cause trouble I think.
> . . .
> I would think that a fine marker of success would be getting
> that new terminology into the pertinent specifications as well as into
> AWWW.

Mark Baker's point notwithstanding, and further to TBL's comments at
the f2f and Jonathan Rees's remarks just now, I'm hoping we don't
define _conflicting_ terminology at all.  If 'resource' doesn't have
any useful/definable meaning, then we won't just be using some other
word for the same thing, we'll be describing the relevant aspects of
web architecture that avoid that problem area altogether.

Yes, that's a promissory note.  But, at the risk of repeating myself,
see [1] for a proof-of-concept.  I'm not suggesting we adopt the
terminology used therein, merely pointing to it as an example of an (I
hope) useful discussion of a bit of web architecture which not only
does without the _word_ 'resource', but also without any other such
word.

ht

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013May/0056.html
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 15:55:20 UTC

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