- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:13:54 -0800
- To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E8C8C4C7@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I've been trying to choose which of the proposals to resolve CR10 I prefer. And actually I find each of them to be a little bit too full of code words. For instance, DaveO's definition of "on the Web" does not seem to appear in the Web Architecture, nor in the URI TAG finding. Which makes me want to stay away from that phrasing, as it's liable to mean different things to different readers, satisfying the issue politically but not actually communicating clearly enough. Instead I think we should be very explicit about what we're taking about, and refer directly to the architecture document and use the terminology that document recommends, and the implications of it on ref params. I also think there are times, for instance bridging a legacy system to the internet, where identifying a "resource" using ref params is a necessary part of the design, and I'd like to state that clearly as well. So, I'd like to put forward another alternative for resolving CR10. Proposal 5: The W3C Architecture of the World Wide Web [AoWWW] recommends as Best Practice [Section 2.1] the use of URIs to identify resources. Following this best practice precludes the use of abstract properties of an EPR other than [destination] to identify resources. In certain circumstances, such a use of additional properties may be convenient, beneficial, or even necessary. However, when building systems, the benefits or convenience of identifying a resource using reference parameters should be carefully weighed against the benefits of identifying a resource solely by URI. <From>Jonathan Marsh</ From> <ReplyTo>jmarsh@microsoft.com <mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com> </ ReplyTo> <RelatesTo>http://spaces.msn.com/members/auburnmarshes/ <http://spaces.msn.com/members/auburnmarshes/> </ RelatesTo>
Received on Monday, 21 November 2005 16:14:58 UTC