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

Re: Uniform access to descriptions

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:21:23 +0100
Message-ID: <4802B193.7010202@musc.edu>
To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
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>

Eric J. Bowman wrote:
> 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.
First, I do not think 303 solve my particular use case. 

Second, I still could not rational your example.  If you know the 
relationship between [a-d], and you also understand what a client 
request, I don't know why you have to use 303/400 but 200 to serve your 
client's request.  On the other hand, if you don't know the 
/representation/describes relationship of [a-d], how can you serve it later?
>> 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.
Well, you call it a fringe case because you couldn't define it.  Which 
one is a more proper architecture, the one with fewer fringe case or the 
one with more?  I think the theory of relativity is a *fringe* case 
w.r.t. classic physics.  And you can say the latter is the proper 
physics...what can I say?

Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 01:22:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:21 UTC