- From: Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:59:14 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Sep 27, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Sun, 27 Sep 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: >> 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. >>> See also the subject line of >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Jun/0101.html >> >> Henri, when you say "theoretically pure view" it almost sounds as a >> bad >> thing. >> >> Technical purity is a *good* thing, unless it is in conflict with >> other >> design goals. I don't think it is in this case. > > It's in conflict with the design goal of using terminology that > matches > what most people think of. > > RFC2616's terminology is more abstract than is useful for most Web > developers, and therefore this kind of terminology confuses people. Can you provide evidence to back your claim? I am specifically referring to your claim about confusion caused by "resource" as "a thing that sends bits upon request". Nikunj
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 19:02:05 UTC