- From: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
- Date: 17 Jul 2003 10:13:30 -0400
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 13:17, pat hayes wrote: > >I think it is reasonable to say that, if the Web architecture document > >is to embody all of the SW and WSA activities, the Introduction > >and most of the document will have to be rewritten. It is also > >reasonable to say that we haven't gotten that far yet, nor do we > >intend to until after this version is released. > > Ok, fair enough: but could y'all at least try to *not* say things > that will cause actual harm? For example, just avoiding the phrase > "the resource of the URI" might be a great help, and instead using > some phrase which is less likely to be understood as meaning 'the > resource referred to by the URI'. Why does an existing, well deployed set of standards and systems have to change its lexicon to suit a system that has only mildly been specified and rarely deployed? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the SW and I really hope to use it in lots of applications. But I've spent far to much time getting ordinary standards setting people up to speed on what we've already specified to change the language (and meaning) out from under them.... IMHO, the best thing the SW web could do is create a brand new word and define it to mean whatever it is they want it to mean and leave the rest of the architecture as is.... -MM
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 10:15:16 UTC