- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:44:30 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
re http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040608/ I have a bunch of editorial suggestions; I sent those to Ian separately (with copy to www-archive). Substantively... I had some reservations about this in 2.2: "To keep communication costs down, by design a URI identifies one resource. Since the scope of a URI is global, the resource identified by a URI does not depend on the context in which the URI appears." but they're pretty much addressed by section 2.4. URI Overloading; perhaps a forward reference would help; I'm not sure. Perhaps it's OK as is. Then... er... conflict? Good practice: URI opacity Agents making use of URIs MUST NOT ... How can a MUST NOT constraint be just good practice? Either change the label to "Design Constraint" or change the MUST NOT somehow. I don't know if that conflict is a show-stopper or not; I'd like somebody else to give an opinion. Otherwise, I give it a thumbs-up. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 07:44:44 UTC