- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:33:43 -0500
- To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
First off, congratulations to Ian and the TAG on a job well done. This is a really excellent document that many will certainly find useful. Here are my comments. - in section 1, point 2 of the scenario, the application/xhtml+xml media type is referenced though without "[RFC3236]" which is in the list of references. - the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph in section 2.5 says "For robustness, Web architecture promotes independence between an identifier and the identified resource.". Should it not say "... the identified resource and its representations."? - I concur with the XML Schema WG's comment that the document is too focused on browser-based interactions rather than on the more general problem of automata interaction. I understand the TAG's reluctance to tackle the Web-vs-Web-services issue, but I think it's important for AWWW to at least give the impression - if not outright say - that there exists solutions to the automata integration problem within the constraints/guidelines/principles of Web architecture. Some other examples in section 3 would help there. - in section 2.4, after the Good practice guideline, the following sentence is found; "When a software agent dereferences such a URI, if what really happens is that HTTP GET is invoked to retrieve a representation of the resource, then an "http" URI would have sufficed.". I wonder, is "what really happens" what is intended here? The developer of a WEATHER protocol would assert that an HTTP GET is not what is happening and therefore the weather scheme is appropriate. Also, I think that "dereferences" is used here to mean "retrieve a representation". So I suggest that the sentence change to say; "When a software agent retrieves a representation of such a URI, if HTTP GET could reasonably have been used for that interaction, then an "http" URI would have sufficed." - for the references, 2396bis is up to rev4 - in section 4.5.2, I'm uncomfortable with the recommendation to use XLink when using XML, except perhaps when authoring documents which are intended for human consumption. I believe that RDF/XML provides superior linking capabilities for XML than does XLink, and IMO preference should be given to it. Alternately, listing both as options would be adequate. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Friday, 5 March 2004 09:32:10 UTC