W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:37:05 -0400
Message-Id: <171B4817-405F-4BFE-8E67-7B1093344BDC@creativecommons.org>
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
To: Michael K. Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>

On Apr 8, 2008, at 11:34 PM, Michael K. Bergman wrote:
> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2008, at 3:35 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
>>> Jonathan,
>>> Clearly Xiaoshu is unhappy about this and that discussion will  
>>> need to play out and, presumably, be taken into full account by  
>>> the TAG. Meanwhile, I'm willing to help create the document - but  
>>> my diary is pretty well full for this week and next.
>> Don't single out Xiaoshu as there are other dissenters as well...  
>> The first step is an issue summary document (focusing not on  
>> solutions but on use cases), and preparing that can go on in  
>> parallel with discussion of the merits of various solutions.
> +1 about singling out, but not about "dissenters"

I didn't think "dissent" was a loaded term, sorry. Xiaoshu said "The  
proposed LINK is breaking this orthogonality", and the background was  
the popularity and momentum of the RFC, so it seemed apt even if a  
bit tongue-in-cheek (which never comes off in email).

The use cases are intended to ground the discussion.

We seem to have two discussions in this thread now, one on UA2D and  
one on httpRange-14. I can see a couple of reasons why httpRange-14  
might have reason to come up. A potential semantic web use case is  
one (properties of IRs such as class and stability would be nice, but  
for other things why would you use UA2D when 303 and # work perfectly  
well?). Consistency of description with status codes is another (what  
if the description says one thing but the status code seems to  
contradict it?). I imagine there are others. I'll try to decouple use  
cases from httpRange-14 and to list questions such as consistency  
among those that need to be addressed. I don't want UA2D linked too  
closely to httpRange-14 - it's distracting and probably not necessary.

> This is not about us v them, but us communicating to the broader  
> public.
> This is not a new concern and it will not go away.  If there is an  
> interest, I have been following these discussions for quite some  
> months and have a lengthy set of references and individuals who  
> have expressed concerns about these matters.

Right now I am very interested in anything you have relating to  
uniform access to descriptions (Link: header and equivalent).

Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 15:44:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:20 UTC