- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:22:52 -0400
- To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Thanks again Stuart. Here are some further responses to your recnet note. Changes are checked in at the same URI you reviewed yesterday, which is http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/selfDescribingDocuments-2008-05-12.html (note that this is an editors copy and will soon be supplanted by a more stable version for public review at a new URI). As I've said, I'm in meetings these two days, and may more may not get to your other comments for now. Stuart Williams wrote: > FWIW on first reading by this reviewer the flow: > > "When he clicks it, his browser: from the http: at the > beginning of the URI determines that the http scheme has been used" > > failed to parse due I think to the large separation between the > subject (his browser) and the verb (determines). It took me > three readings to make sense of it. Ok. I'm just one data point. Changed that entire paragraph to read: "Bob is reading a Web page which includes a link to http://example.com/todaysnews. Bob has had no previous contact with the owner of the referenced resource, and his browser has not been specially configured for access to it. The steps taken by Bob's browser when he clicks the link illustrate a typical path through the standard retrieval algorithm of the Web (readers unfamiliar with the HTTP protocol may find it useful to consult either [HTTP], or one of the many HTTP introductions available on the Web): " > Well, I'd be wary of the TAG suggesting deployment of such a > media-type outside of a prototypical situation was kind-of Ok. > But I'll accept your argument that it is not "and outright > violation of Web architecture". I guess I'm still a little perplexed by your concern on this one. What the draft says is: "In this example, there are no outright violations of Web architecture, but the decision to use an uncommon and proprietary media type is unfortunate. No existing Web user agents recognize the image/x-fancyrawphotoformat media type, search engine spiders are unlikely to extract useful information from pictures in that format, and so on. Unlike Susan's, which can be viewed by almost anyone, Mary's photos are at best useful to a few people who have the proprietary software needed to decode them. " Note that this follows a paragraph indicating that publication of images using the widely deployed and properly registered media type image/jpeg media type is an example of good practice. I honestly don't see how this can be taken as the TAG endorsing practices such as the TAG "suggesting deployment of such a media-type." Maybe I'm not reading with a sufficiently unbiased perspective, but I think it's pretty clear that the TAG is strongly >discouraging< this practice. I'm out of time at the moment, but as noted in private email earlier, I'd still be curious to know for which of the other issues you've raised you'd actually look for changes in the draft, and where possible, some guidance as to what those changes might be. Thank you! Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 13:22:38 UTC