- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:58:15 +0100
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Hello Mark, You'll find more mention of RFC2119 imperatives in the record of our November F2F [1]. Bascially we questioned, apparently without resolution, whether we should be using them at all. Stuart [1] http://www.w3.org/2003/11/15-tag-summary.html > -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Mark Baker > Sent: 28 June 2004 15:12 > To: Dan Connolly > Cc: www-tag@w3.org > Subject: Re: review Identification 8Jun > > > This seems closely related to a previous issue I raised > regarding the use of RFC 2119 (in which I explicitly called > out the URI opacity good practice note as an example); > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Sep/0191.html > > I thought this had been resolved (though it doesn't appear > that way now), but I can't recall what the resolution was. > My apologies for that. > > The last mention of this I could find is; > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Nov/0042.html > > But I don't believe that the opacity issue is a show stopper. > > Mark. > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 06:44:30AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > > > > 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. > > Mark. > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca > > Seeking work on large scale application/data integration projects > and/or the enabling infrastructure for same. >
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 12:58:42 UTC