Re: Gloss standard terminology for resource/representation (ISSUE-81 Change Proposal)

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       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 18:01:02 UTC