- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:10:03 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, wangxiao@musc.edu, W3C-TAG Group WG <www-tag@w3.org>
Pat Hayes writes: > > [Noah Mendelsohn wrote]: > > If I say that it's for the poem, and in a year or so someone > >comes up with a font I like better, I see no problem with my changing the > >page to use that. > > Neither do I: but that doesn't mean that the URI denotes anything > font-less, like the 'real' poem. It just means that your resource > here has a changing font. Let's make the example more complicated. I mint the URI and claim, at least insofar as you're willing to allow me too :-), that it represents the poem itself, not a particular presentation of it. Because I'm a cool Web guy, I support content negotiation. On day one, in addition to that fancy 25 point italic version served as text/html, I also offer text/plain, with each line of the poem given on one line of the returned text. Now, as in the first example, I decide I've found a better font for the HTML, and I leave the text version unchanged. You seem to imply that the resource itself has surely changed? Your view seems to be that the resource needs to, at least in some sense, be isomorphic to the representation, so you infer that when the representation changes the resource must have changed. It seems to follow that in the case of conneg, the resource must in some sense be (or be isomorphic to) the union of all served representations. My preferred view is that there is allowance for changing policy as to how a particular resource is represented, and that such changes to not necessarily imply that the resource itself has changed. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 00:09:03 UTC