- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 16:03:11 -0400
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Frank Manola writes: > I think you ought to at least say something like: > > "Reading that advertisement, Bob can reasonably assume that he can get a > weather report for a specific city at a URI created by substituting the > city name into the URI pattern > http://example.org/weather/your-city-name-here." > > to nail down the point that the authority has documented its URI > assignment policy in the ad, and Bob can reasonably make use of that > information in obtaining weather reports on arbitrary cities by > constructing the appropriate URIs. > > If you want to go on and point out that the authority has *also* made > claims about the *quality* of the weather reports that can be obtained > at those URIs, and that Bob ought to be able to rely on those claims, I > think you should be more explicit about that, e.g., with some additional > text like: > > "Moreover, the advertisement claims that the weather information > obtainable at those URIs is "the best", and hence Bob can reasonably > assume that any weather report retrieved from such a URI is both > trustworthy and current." These strike me as good suggestions. I don't want to quite commit to adopting them until I see what other guidance I get about those parts of the finding, but they do make sense to me, and I'll give serious thought to adopting them either as is or perhaps with some modification. BTW: it is really helpful for a variety of reasons when commentators offer short suggested edits like this. Doing so simultaneously clarifies the commentator's concern and also what an acceptable resolution might be. Of course, it may save the editor some time too! Much appreciated, thank you! -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 21 May 2006 20:03:20 UTC