Re: Content Sniffing impact on HTTPbis - #155

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/