- From: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 17:26:11 -0500
- To: Yaron Goland <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
- cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I suspect my problem with the language in the section derives from the differentiation made between static and dynamic resources. In my experience one can not really make the distinction because even if a "resource" is just a file in a file system, there is always a server on top of it that may or may not alter its presentation. If the language in section 9 were to be re-written with the assumption that ALL resources are dynamic then I suspect we would find the resulting language mutually acceptable. I agree that there is a perspective that there are no truly static resources in the world, but if we get hung up on that, we're verging on a meta-physical discussion that will distract from the point of this section. And if we tried to write something that works for all dynamic resources, there truly wouldn't be anything meaningful said in that section. That section is very readable right now and does a good job of conveying a fuzzy concept/behavior: There are a range of resources. From the ideal static resource to the most dynamic resource you could imagine. One will probably never encounter a resource at either extreme. Where a given resource lies between these two extremes is in the eyes of the beholder... but the platonic ideal of a static resource acts in this fashion... That being said, feel free to write up a new version of that section, but please don't get overly distracted trying to convey the fact the the nominal "static resource" is only an ideal. I do feel if one's focus is too much on that, they will write something less effective than the current text. As I said, the current text seems to do a good job conveying a fuzzy topic.
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2000 17:27:12 UTC