- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 13:09:44 -0500
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 18:00 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: > 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. I accept that as your opinion. I don't agree. > > 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. Whether you see a need or not is not relevant to this proposal; the fact is: there are previously ratified specs that use the URI/resource/representation model, and they are cited by the HTML 5 spec. Some explanation of the difference in terminology is in order. As editor, your opinion is relevant to the wholesale use of terminology in the spec, but I don't propose to change that. I only propose that the spec provide some explanation of the difference between your preferred terminology and the previously ratified terminology. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 18:09:46 UTC