- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:53:21 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > ... > No, the confusion is caused by trying to reference something that doesn't > exist. There is no such thing as what you call a "resource" -- it's an > abstract concept that has no correspondance to the real world. It is > unnecessary and makes talking about our infrastructure more complicated. > ... It is something abstract, but it can't be avoided when talking about the architecture of the web, thus having an agreed-upon name is a good thing. >> So it appears you want to [use] "resource" exclusively with protocols >> that give you well-delimited bag-of-bits responses? > > As far as I'm aware, that is by and large what HTML5 does, yes. For > brevity, I have used the term "resource" even in cases where arbitrary > URLs can be used and actually applying the semantics of the URL could > result in a result other than obtaining an actual resource, but I don't > think this has led to any ambiguities in the spec's requirements. > > For example, one could have: > > <link rel="author" href="mailto:author@example.com" title="Mail me"> > > ...which the HTML5 spec says is a hyperlink, and it goes on to say that > the UA might provide a UI that incldes the "title of the resource (given > by the title attribute)", though of course in this case there's no actual > resource: if the user does follow that hyperlink, the navigation algorithm > will abort before anything to do with resources happens (namely in what is > currently step 7). > > Since the use of "resource" here is harmless (it causes no confusion, and > the requirements remain unambiguous), I haven't looked for other > terminology. Changing this to "representation of the resource" in this > case would do nothing to improve the clarity (and would be just as wrong). Well, a link relation does not refer to a bag-of-bits, but to a resource (in the WEB-ARCH/URI sense). So changing the terminology where would be clearly incorrect. BR, Julian BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 08:54:04 UTC