- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:36:11 -0700
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Sep 27, 2009, at 3:49 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Sep 27, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> On Sep 27, 2009, at 14:18, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >>> It seems like it would be more painstakingly accurate to say "A >>> URL is a string used to retrieve a resource" >> >> I think the point of the ISSUE is that the theoretically pure view >> is that you can never retrieve a resource but only its >> representation. > > Right, but the particular sub-issue here is whether HTML5 uses the > word "resource" consistently (something I think also doesn't matter > very much). It matters a great deal to me. If you think it is going to help progress on HTML5 for us to replay fifteen years of debate on what a resource is for the Web, then please explain why Ian's opinion is sufficient to contradict existing practice on the Web, all other W3C specifications, the normative Internet standard, my own dissertation, and the entire world-view of RDF. HTML is not a standalone specification. It is part of the World Wide Web architecture. If you don't want to standardize within the constraints of the Web, then feel free to change the name of the specification to something else. ....Roy
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 23:36:45 UTC