- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:02:18 -0400
- To: James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com>
- Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Mar 24, 2012, at 08:38, James Leigh wrote: > On Sat, 2012-03-24 at 08:11 +0000, Jeni Tennison wrote: >> Can I just cast that into the language used by the rest of the proposal? What about: >> >> when documentation is served with a 200 response from a probe >> URI and does not contain a 'describedby' statement, some agents >> (including the publisher) might use it to identify the documentation >> and others a non-information resource. Publishers still need to >> provide support for two distinct URIs if they want to enable more >> consistent use of the URI. >> >> How does that sound? >> > > I'd buy into that. It works, but asks a lot from implementors and users to read and understand the subtlety. That's why I'd prefer an approach that provides a more simple, unambiguous definition. Regards, Dave > > Regards, > James > >
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 18:02:46 UTC