- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:40:58 +1000
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
IME this distinction is critical and not making it causes all sorts of problems. Are you seriously suggesting that you want to re-defined "resource" across the scope of the Web -- both in the W3C and IETF? On 14/06/2009, at 9:35 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> >>> 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). > > Right, the resource varies over time. The URI identifies a different > resource over time. Distinguishing the "representation of the > resource" > and the resource itself is a theoretical distinction that really > isn't of > much use in practice, and continuing to insist on the use of such > terminology does nothing but alienate people who read specifications > for > the first time. > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E ) > \._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _ > \ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'-- > (,_..'`-.;.' -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 13 June 2009 23:41:38 UTC