- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:51:22 -0500
- To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Henry, I have a couple of comments on this draft. The first is editorial, and I'm afraid the second will cause some consternation, but anyway: ------ Section 4: "In its finding on how responses to requests for resources which are not information resources should be constructed [HTTPRANGE] ,the TAG recommended that documents descriptive of non-information resources should not be simply returned normally in response to requests for URIs which identify those resources. " This sentence seems a bit convoluted and difficult to parse. Lots of "not"s and "non-"s. ------ Section 4: "Since a namespace document is precisely such a descriptive document, and namespaces are not information resources..." Well, as of the Southampton meeting, we don't have consensus that namespaces are not information resources. I think they are (a collection of allocated names, the list of which can typically be conveyed either extensionally or intensionally in a message, and is this an information resource), and Tim believes that namespaces are not information resources. We do agree, however, that even if a NS is an information resource, it is not the information resource that is the descriptive document with links to schemas, etc. That's a separate resource and it is definitely IMO an information resource. Might we avoid having to settle the question be rephrasing as: "Since the Web resource that is the description of a namespace is clearly distinct from the resource that is the namespace itself, the two should in general have separate URIs. What should be done to facilitate finding one from the other?" Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2007 17:50:01 UTC