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 12:25:12 -0700
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <61A7215C-66B0-4B26-A5F9-7216540BCB02@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Apr 6, 2010, at 12:09 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Ian Hickson 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?
>> What practical difference would it make to focus on consistency with
>> other W3C specs?
> Well other specs don't talk about what "resource" means, they just  
> use the
> term (like HTML5 does). I'm just curious about why HTML5 should be  
> treated
> differently here than other W3C specs.

I could imagine the same note being equally applicable to other W3C  
specs, but that would be outside the scope of what the HTML WG can  
decide on. It's only up to us to determine whether this change would,  
on the whole, be beneficial to specs produced by this Working Group.

Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 19:25:45 UTC

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