W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > January to March 2004

RE: Architecture vs. building codes

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:04:36 +0100
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E808028A254D@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@verity.com>
Cc: "'public-webarch-comments@w3.org'" <public-webarch-comments@w3.org>

Micah,

Thank you for your review of our LC draft. 

We have received a significant number of comments and have begun to work on
them. However it may take a few weeks for us to reply in substance.

Best regards

Stuart Williams.
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-webarch-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-webarch-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Micah Dubinko
> Sent: 26 March 2004 19:40
> To: 'public-webarch-comments@w3.org'
> Subject: Architecture vs. building codes
> 
> 
> On March 3, I promised [1] to provide belated comments.
> 
> [1] "Comments forthcoming"
>  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/20
> 04JanMar/0003.
> html
> 
> Here they are. Due to circumstances beyond my control, these 
> should be taken as a personal position, based on my 
> experience using, making, and implementing Web standards, 
> with no connection to the position (if any) of my employer or 
> any W3C member organization.
> 
> First, I'd like to incorporate by reference my earlier 
> message to www-tag [2]
> 
> [2] "Differing interpretations"
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0261.html
> 
> I've been following most of the TAG discussions. Often there 
> are several possible interpretations for some aspect under 
> discussion, and often there is no empirical way to decide 
> which one is correct. Both can be correct under specific 
> circumstances. Such is the nature of any "architecture".
> 
> An amazing amount of work has gone into the webarch document. 
> Good work.
> Still it fails to describe what could be called an architecture.
> 
> The document in question reads more like "building codes", 
> the sort of things that can be universally agreed upon, and 
> concretely argued. A room full of brilliant architects, 
> however, will just never agree on a single design for 
> anything non-trivial. Each will have a different philosophy 
> on how things should be described, and each a unique approach.
> 
> In other words, the W3C consensus process (wildly successful 
> as it is in many areas) is fundamentally the wrong way to 
> write down "the Web architecture".
> 
> Some concrete suggestions for changes:
> 
> 1) Retitle the document. It isn't an "architecture" document 
> as it stands. I suggest using a synonym for "building codes".
> 
> 2) Change the Abstract and Status of this document to 
> indicate that the scope of this particular document is things 
> that achieved consensus within the TAG
> 
> 3) Commit to better layering through one or more follow-on 
> documents that describe a particular architectural 
> philosophy. In particular, REST. It's possible that such 
> documents could produce dissentions. If the dissention 
> affects running code, it should be resolved in the "building codes"
> document. If it doesn't affect code, it's a legitimate 
> difference and should be allowed to stand. A significant body 
> of dissenting philosophy should warrant a separate document 
> to espouse the alternate view.
> 
> 3.5) In particular, the following open issues would lend 
> themselves to this kind of resolution: (not an exhaustive list)
> 
> * httpRange-14
> * contentPresentation-26
> * fragmentInXML-28
> * rdfURIMeaning-39
> * possibly URIGoodPractice-40
> * and, of course, ultimateQuestion-42 :-) 
> 
> 4) Remove any non-provable statements from the document, 
> including "Resources exist before URIs; a resource may be 
> identified by zero URIs"
> (sec 2) There may be others.
> 
> Thanks for your time,
> .micah
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 29 March 2004 12:05:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:55:22 UTC