- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:06:58 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
At 15:55 28/09/04 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote: >| Section 2.5, Good Practice point: >| >| I found the point, as stated, seemed rather vague (specifically: >| "except as specified by relevant specifications"). >| >| My suggestion would be turn this around to state something like this: >| [[ >| The form of URI may indicate how to access a resource, but not about >| the nature of the resource, except insofar as it is constrained by the >| access method. >| ]] > >I think the problem is that I could invent and register a scheme that >did allow additional assertions. The data: scheme, for example, allows >me to assert that the resource is the URI. Oops, I think I just made a similar point with respect to the revised URI spec! (i.e. I take your point.) I still think "except as specified by relevant specifications" is unhelpful here; The vague reference to "relevant specifications" doesn't tell the reader where else to look. I'll take another stab at a revision for your consideration: [[ The form of URI may indicate how to access a resource, but not about the nature of the resource, except insofar as it may be constrained by the specification of the particular URI scheme used. ]] (I think that covers access method dependents.) #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2004 09:15:02 UTC