RE: Some comments on 27 June 2003 Web Arch WD

1. We regularly use the phrase "on the web" in our document.  It should be
defined to be more complete.
2. We have lots of other things in our document that we should cut if we
want to apply just that metric.
3. Common sense to me says that Web Arch v1.0 should define what on the web
means.
4. Other groups within the W3C, at least ws-arch and xmlp, use this phrase.
It would be good to have a normative definition so that I don't have to yet
again say what I think it means.  Part of the reason for doing web arch is
so that we have consensus on what things mean, rather than single opinions
without any consensus opinion.
5. I don't think this is huge scope creep that will cause us to slip our
schedule.

Cheers,
Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Dan Connolly
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 8:33 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Some comments on 27 June 2003 Web Arch WD
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 18:26, David Orchard wrote:
> > - "On the web" is not defined in this document.  I would
> think that we would
> > want to define what "on the web" means for V1 of the Web
> architecture.
>
> Why? We're trying to be minimally constraining...
>
> "minimal constraints (fewer rules makes the system more flexible)"
>  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#doc-scope
>
> I don't see any particular reason to define 'on the web'.
>
> >   My
> > stab <shields mode="up">"On the Web means that a URI may be
> dereferenced
> > without the input of a representation, typically a GET
> retrieval.  Being on
> > the Web versus not on the Web is a trade-off in properties
> achieved and is
> > not be default a "bad" thing.  Some Web resources
> necessarily must be off
> > the Web, such as HTML FORM POST results." </shields>
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 12:27:00 UTC