- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 11:04:59 +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>
On 14/06/2009, at 9:48 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> IME this distinction is critical and not making it causes all sorts >> of >> problems. > > Like what? Confusion, of course. Changing the terminology of the Web fifteen years after it was established will only add to that. > Are you seriously suggesting that you want to re-defined "resource" >> across the scope of the Web -- both in the W3C and IETF? > > I'm claiming that the term "resource" already means "bag of bits" > and that > it is only within the context of the URI specs and the HTTP specs that > anyone claims otherwise, and that these claims are based on a > distinction > that is purely theoretical and doesn't actually affect deployed > content, > or users, except for confusing them. You're wrong, and in terms of the Web, HTTP and URI are two out of three -- you're outnumbered as well. > (Can you get any Web designer to > correctly explain the difference between the terms resource > identifier, > resource, and resource representation as you use them?) Do you think they'll actually be reading these documents? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2009 01:05:38 UTC