- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:21:23 +0100
- 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? Xiaoshu
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 01:22:10 UTC