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

On 06.04.2010 22:50, Dan Connolly wrote:
> ...
>> 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'm not asking for HTML 5 to be treated differently;
> I've made similar comments in the case of other specs.
> ...

Indeed. If we give up on using terminology correctly just because other 
specs got it wrong this will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

> ...
>>> 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.
>> I believe that mentioning such differences will increase the level of
>> confusion, not reduce it, because few people are familiar with the way
>> HTTP uses these terms.
> Few relative to the population of the planet, yes... even relative
> to the web development community as a whole perhaps. But relative to the
> intended audience of this spec, especially sections such as
> the one on Application caches, I believe they are a
> critical constituency, if not the majority.

That's an important point. Given the level of detail and the focus on UA 
implementations, this appears to be a spec that will only be consumed by 
few people in detail. If *these* people get confused by Dan's proposed 
addition, we are in big trouble.

> I gather we're at step 3, Discussion in the escalation process.
> I'd like to hear from other people.
> I'm interested to know if this proposal has "wide support".
> In the interest of gauging support/opposition, I created
> "This page is one way to express support or opposition to the Gloss
> standard terminology for resource/representation change proposal re
> ISSUE-81, rather than using n^2 email messages whose content is only
> +1/-1.


> Please send novel arguments to the public-html mailing list; feel free
> to cite them here, but make sure to send them there."

I think it would be preferable to clean up the spec so that the 
terminology gets consistent with URI/HTTP/WebArch. But if we can't get 
that, that terminology clarification is required to explain the 
difference for at least those readers who want to know. Others can 
easily ignore it.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 21:35:02 UTC