- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:20:48 -0500
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 01:54 -0400, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: > Dan, > > Thanks for the very helpful explanations, and sorry it's taken a while > to respond. > > When the WebArch is unclear (or even conflicting), readers have no > choice but to guess the TAG's intent. What I'm trying to explain is that the TAG's position isn't conflicting nor unclear; it just says less than people in this group have claimed. > You've given one interpretation, > which sounds like it boils down to: > > - Any resource r is an "information resource" if: > > a. there exists a URI that returns a > 2xx status when dereferenced; and > > b. r is not a dog, person or physical book. > > c. the owner of that URI claims that the > the URI identifies r; and I don't know how you got that from what I wrote. Perhaps I should just stop. The first condition is sufficient. If it looks like I'm trying to say anything more than what the TAG has published, I really should just stop. I'm really, really trying not to. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 12 May 2006 13:21:00 UTC