- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:51:49 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: >> Ian Hickson wrote: >>> ... >>>> Separately, as an editorial comment, as listed directly above, I'd like to >>>> see a big s/resource/resource representation/g (or just >>>> s/resource/representation/g as the resource is what is identified by the >>>> URI, not the bag-o-bits returned in an HTTP response. I have some other >>>> editorial comments too, but those will have to wait until I have time to >>>> write them down. >>> A resource is a bag of bits. I would object to this change. >> Mark is correct. Please use terminology consistent with other IETF specs. > > In this particular case, I really would encourage the use of terms people > understand. In any case, the term "resource" is correct when refering to a > file, stream, or other "bag of bits". The terminology used by HTTP in this > instance is inconsistent with wider usage (and remarkably confusing). No, that usage isn't exclusive to HTTP. URI identify resources, but the retrieval returns you a representation of the resource, not the resource. For instance, that's true for "file:" as well (the contents may vary over time). BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 13 June 2009 19:52:36 UTC