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

On Apr 12, 2010, at 10:04 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> Sounds like Dan is satisfied with Ian's suggestion, but prefers retaining a specific section reference. Does anyone else have objections to Ian's language? Does anyone have strong feelings one way or the other on the section reference?
> If no one objects or suggests further alternatives in a day or two, then I'd recommend to the editor to put the proposed language in the spec so we can see it in context. Then we can do a CfC for amicable resolution if it seems agreeable.

Adding a paragraph that basically says this spec is clueless
about overall Web technology (beyond the internal mechanisms
of a general purpose browser) will not satisfy my objection.

As long as the spec is called HTML, I expect it to define HTML
and be defined in the same terms as the rest of Web architecture.


Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 06:03:08 UTC