W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:05:29 -0700
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <A18C3606-780A-4D9F-97AA-9BFF3C543A02@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Apr 6, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Dan Connolly wrote:
>> This is informed by discussion with lots of people, but nobody else  
>> has
>> looked at it, so it's just from me.
>> I understand proposals were due January 16, 2010; I hope this  
>> proposal
>> will get some consideration even though it's late.
> 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?

What practical difference would it make to focus on consistency with  
other W3C specs? It seems to me that the proposal identifies the  
difference in usage with protocol specs, but leaves the actual  
terminology in the bulk of the spec as it was (i.e. more consistent  
with other W3C specs).

Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 18:06:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:00 UTC