- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:55:16 -0500
- To: 'Sandro Hawke' <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
I agree. The arch was trapped in the original terminology
used to describe URLs. It didn't prove to be
robust past the application to dereferencing.
Terms like 'information resource' are glue to
improve the range of word senses.
There's not supposed to be anything weird or surprising
in physics, but the terminology and the metaphorical
examples lead to much spookiness. One gets used to it.
len
From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
Sandro Hawke
> So after much discussion, we are back to the beginning, that is,
> dereferencing a URI returns a document (aka, bits on the wire)
> or doesn't?
Of course.
> Something of an anti-climax.
There's not supposed to be anything weird or surprising in WebArch.
It was supposed to be just writing down stuff that was obvious to
folks who knew how the Web was supposed to work.
Turned out to be less obvious than expected on a few points. Getting
it back to obvious is Good Thing.
-- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2004 20:55:49 UTC