- From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:43:11 -0600
- To: wangxiao@musc.edu
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Michaeljohn Clement <mj@mjclement.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
Xiaoshu Wang wrote: > > Eric, can you try to read the latest threads on TAG list and > understand what is at debate here? > Why would you assume that I haven't, or don't? > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Apr/0139.html. And > http://dfdf.inesc-id.pt/tr/web-arch is my analysis on the issue last > November. But many other latest posting would be helpful too. (Not > to convince you but just want us to start more meaningful discussion > on equal footing, O.K.) > I have read your references. I disagree with your position in its particulars, but in a larger sense I agree with the notion of using content negotiation. I have posted how I believe content negotiation and 303 redirects may be used more properly for your ends, than the method you have suggested. > > You might have read. I make the above suggestion is by guessing from > your wording in this sentence "In such a case, your variant > representations are not awww:resources or even Information Resources > ...". Because I believe if you do read the past two or three weeks > of postings, you should know how *inappropriate* (not a true or false > issue) to use awww:resources and IR as a criteria here. > Which does not change the fact that you're using a fringe case to make your point, and said fringe case goes against proper Web architecture, which sorta means referring to Web architecture regardless of the delicate sensibilities of anyone on this list. -Eric
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 00:45:34 UTC