W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: ISSUE-81 (resource vs representation)

From: Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:59:14 -0700
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <206B3E05-7FC9-4C5D-ABAC-6759D00A588C@oracle.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

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".

Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 19:02:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:57 UTC