RE: ACTION-156: Review of

Argh!! Important correction:  the URI where the changes can be found is 
Sorry for the confusion.


Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Sent by:
09/04/2008 09:22 AM
        To:     "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <>
        cc:     "" <>, (bcc: Noah 
        Subject:        RE: ACTION-156: Review of

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 
(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 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 Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 13:42:44 UTC