Re: New draft of section 5.5

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:12 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
>> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:37 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
>> > > General comments on
>> > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/latest/
>
> One other comment that's been on my mind since our last call.  During
> the call you explained that your intent behind this document is to
> stimulate discussion among SW and LOD folks about whether the
> httpRange-14 rule should be kept (more firmly) or dropped.

Note just among those groups; anyone concerned, including the TAG and
anyone using RDF and RDFa just for mundane purposes, not necessarily
with a semweb or LOD interest.

The status section says:

{
This report has been developed by the AWWSW Task Group of the W3C
Technical Architecture Group in order to provide background material
for further discussion among those affected by this architectural
question, and to help drive TAG issue 57 [issue-57] to a conclusion.
}

referring to the "architectural question" given in the abstract:

{
However, difficulties in using these methods have led to a search for
new methods that are easier to deploy, and perform better, than the
established ones.
}

I thought that was pretty clear, but I guess the missing piece is that
this search has led to methods that are incompatible with the 200 part
of the httpRange-14 rule.  So I'll put something in the abstract about
this.

I am also planning on highlighting the compatibility issue in sections
5.5 and 5.6.

> If this is
> the intent, then I think:
>
>  - It may make sense to state it in the abstract and/or intro; and
>
>  - It may work better to focus on the CC licensing use case that you've
> mentioned, as that use case very clearly shows the down side of dropping
> the httpRange-14 rule.

Yes, I will put this in 5.6 and maybe the introduction.

Unfortunately I have had to go back to my day job for a little while,
but I'll get back to it soon.

Jonathan

> --
> David Booth, Ph.D.
> http://dbooth.org/
>
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect those of his employer.
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 23:24:16 UTC