- From: Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:16:47 -0400
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "'Jonathan Rees'" <jar@creativecommons.org>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Thanks Larry. I wish I could talk with such clarity. > > I want to take the discussion with Pat a bit further, but will do so > off-list. (Tomorrow, Pat -- I need to mull it over a bit.) > > I initially joined the thread to say this: The HTTP spec, with Roy's > proposed new 303 text, accommodates all Semantic Web use cases I can > think of. Including using HTTP URIs to denote people. It's good to see > httpRange-14 slowly "trickle down" into the specs. If this is your purpose, I believe that you do need to mull it over before talking to Pat. Pat was trying to give httpRange-14 some wiggle room while you, who I have always thought to be a staunch supporters of httpRange-14, was trying to prevent. This raises an even bigger issue because it seems to me that, how you have interpreted the principle of orthogonal specification seems quite different from Pat's (I guess). What the principle of orthogonal specification supports is not a layering architecture but a scalable architecture. In other words, the semantic of one specification must be independent of the other. This is where httpRange-14 breaks because it tempers the semantics of *200* code, which, by httpRange-14, relies on the nature of resource. 303 is not critical because its semantics is for all purpose, hence always *politically* correct. Darn, no wonder I was confused. I honestly don't know what you two were fighting about. :-) Xiaoshu
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 02:17:44 UTC