- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 06 Aug 2003 02:02:43 -0400
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 17:31, Ian B. Jacobs wrote: > Hello, > > The 1 August 2003 Editor's Draft of "Architecture of > the World Wide Web" [1] is now available. This draft > included a lot of changes [2], most of which were based > on TAG discussion at their recent face-to-face meeting > in Vancouver (minutes not yet available; expected early > next week). Hmm... the core terms from the introduction have been substantially changed... |The World Wide Web (WWW, or simply Web) is an information system |that relates information sources and services, referred to |collectively as resources ... That defines resources as information sources and services and nothing else; that's a substantive change from the earlier text, which I thought was quite mature: |Objects in the networked information system called resources |are identified by Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs). -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030716 it placed no constraints on what a resource is. Where did this change come from? The changelog says... 1. Introduction: Incorporated text suggested by Roy Fielding." -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/changes#changes-20030801 i.e. this change came from work-in-progress from one tag member, sent only to the tag private list, with no endorsement from anybody else, that I can see. That seems like a big step backward from the level of maturity section 1 had as of the Vancouver meeting. Hmm... I'm disappointed to see that the record of the Vancouver meeting doesn't record -- my request that the review of each section not assume that everybody agreed to everything unless they said otherwise; that we solicit endorsements as well as criticisms -- my endorsement (and Tim Bray's, if not lots of others') of the text of the intro section, and the definitions of the core terms in particular. so I can't appeal to that record. http://www.w3.org/2003/07/21-tag-summary.html#july22 So as a reviewer like any other reviewr, I ask: please undo this change and put back the intro text that was there before. And I ask the chairs to work with the editor to reduce churn. Let's not have half a suggestion by one TAG member turn into substantive changes to text that has been endorsed previously by multiple TAG members. Let's please be especially careful with the definitions of the marked-up terms. I gather the term "Web components" comes from the same source... |...of Web components (e.g., servers, proxies, browsers, spiders, | multimedia players, and other user agents -- programs acting on | behalf of a person) and describe their interactions: Please roll that one back too. Let's keep "agent". Where did "Web page" come from? I don't see which changelog entry is relevant. I guess I'm not inclined to review further. Based on looking at the first section, I don't find this to be an improvement over the 16 July draft. > A diff file [3] is available but not tremendously > useful. > > - Ian > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/webarch-20030801 > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/webarch/changes#changes-20030801 > [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/diff-webarch-20030716.html -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 02:02:47 UTC