W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2004

Suggested dispositions of comments for section 4 (part one)

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 06:56:23 +0200
Message-ID: <1659524154.20040511065623@w3.org>
To: "www-tag@w3.org"@w3.org

Hello ,

Comments on http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2003/lc1209/webarchWithIssues

issue schema13: [4.2] Overly simplifies a complex problem

I can only agree, WebArch over simplifies the finding and does not
present the good practice note as a trade off or something to balance
with other, perhaps conflicting, design goals.

>> "fallback behaviour" is semantically equivalent to "silently
>> handling errors" and the Web architecture document is thus
>> self-contradictory.

Yes. Need to distinguish between specifications which are reusable
components, and (profiles of or groups of) specifications which are
already combined ready for use.

issue diwg4: Suggest discussion of the limitations of Internet media
types as the prime mechanism for selecting between different
representations of a resource.

Is that in the context of versioning (which does exist, see the
registration for image/cgm) or the limitation of conneg using only
media types (jpeg is better than png for photos, png is better than
jpeg for screenshots, hmm qs factors, what ya gonna do)

But yes, since WebArch really emphasizes media types its worth
mentioning their limitations.

ssue msm14: WD-webarch-20031209, Section 4.2.2, Story: Allowing extra
attributes does change the conformance of existing data

Not really, given that in the story they deliberately chose that
extensibility policy. The point is valid in general but not for this
particular story.

issue schema14: [4.2.3] Must * rules in instance v. documentation

Yes, in particular for the case where the must* is in an external
schema that need not be fetched, or a human readable document; this
requires out of band communication. Having it in the instance risks
that people can redeclare something required to be optional or
otherwise hack around assumptions. Tradeoffs both ways.

issue manola30: Difference between "setting expectations" and "specifying"?

Yes, its wooly language. All instances of "set expectations" could be
changed to "specify", I think.

issue schema15: [4.2.4] SOAP message cannot include JPEG

Yes; regardless of what  MIFFY/MTOM might do, a quick s/JPEG/SVG would
make the statement true.

issue klyne19: Unclear statement about mixing RDF vocabularies

"RDF allows well-defined mixing of vocabularies, and allows text and
XML to be used as a data type values within a statement having clearly
defined semantics.

I couldn't figure precisely what this was trying to say."

Me either. (Either 'as data type values' or 'as a data type value',
too). But see the next issue

issue klyne20: Say something about relationship between Hypertext Web and Semantic Web?
proposal raised 2004-03-05

So thr SW uses the 'Hypertext Web' or parts therof to make statements
about. But it also makes astatement about cars, and things, so that
boild down to 'the semantic Web makes statements' or 'the Semantic Web
is about semantics' (tautolohy) or 'the non-SW has no semantics' (not
true either.

So okay say something, but what? SW is at a different level of
abstraction, layered on top?

issue manola31: Questions about RDF, text, XML mixing

"What does "having clearly defined semantics" modify? Should this be
"...within statements having clearly defined semantics"?"


issue clark6: Separating Presentation From Content

Absolutely. Again the finding conveys this trade off but WebArch over
simolifies and presents as a single choice without trade-offs.

issue gilman1: 'legal requirement' as justification for 'particular
presentation' misses 'leading Web to highest' mark

This is another occurrence of meta-issue-1 "its a trade off,not clear

issue klyne21: Add statement about scalability concerns

Good point, scalability in for example client side vs server side
imagemaps. Pushing computation to the client increases server

issue clark4a: Hypertext Good Practice Redundancies

No, these are not equivalent. There have been hypertext systems that
allowed only linking within a small set of documents, and SGML allowed
within-document linking (id/idref) without actually being a hypertext

The second good practice note is a scalability note, and is needed.
However, it should be broadened not only to hypertext links but other
sorts of links as well.

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2004 00:56:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:04 UTC