- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 18:00:29 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Dan Connolly wrote: > > > > Just out of interest, is there any particular reason why the proposal > > explicitly calls out the HTTP and URI specs rather than focusing on > > consistency with other W3C specs? > > Do you mean other W3C data format specs, such as CSS? There wasn't while > I was preparing it, but now that I think about it: I don't think other > W3C data format specs try to define the terms "resource" and > "representation". They import the terms from the URI spec. They don't define the term, but they use it the same way as HTML5. > Another motivation for calling out HTTP is that the distinction between > the URI/resource/representation world-view and the URL/resource > world-view is tangible there; when discussing multiple HTTP transactions > based on a URI, it makes sense to speak of one thing that the URI > identifies across them. What does it identify? The script on the server? I can see a need for a term for use in abstract discussions, but in the concrete world of the implementable specs, there doesn't seem to be any need. It's just bits on the wire -- a URL turns into an HTTP request which turns into a bag of bits with headers and data... there's no need to talk about the server- side script, even, let alone the abstract concept of that script. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 18:01:02 UTC