RE: ACTION-156: Review of

Hello Noah,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> Sent: 04 September 2008 14:23
> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> Cc:
> 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):  "

[very definitely editorial]

I think that between us we have now managed to leave the verb "determines" in the middle of ther first bullet with out a subject.

In fact the verbs that start all the other bullets a re now stranded without subjects.

The pattern of the first bullet was way different to the pattern of the others in terms of the position of the verb - that why I found it awkward to read.

> > 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.

Firstly I'll let this go.

Personnally I think I'd have tried to construct an example around an obscure but registered media type - maybe one in the vendor tree OR I'd add a note making it clear that quite apart from the pragmatics, that most folks browsers will be incapable of rendering the format, the non experimental use of "x-*" media widely discouraged.

Strictly there is nothing wrong in what you have written. You do illustrate good practice, but apart from the pragmatic problem of having a handler for the proprietary content - there is no explicit statement of what it is that is "not an outright violation of Web architecture". Maybe be its obvious...

Ok... suggested text that will actively resolve this for me:

"...but the decision to use an uncommon and proprietary media type is unfortunate."

"...but the decision to use an uncommon, proprietary, unregistered and apparently experimental media type is [at best] unfortunate."

> 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!

I will take a look and respond.

> Noah
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------



Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 15:14:20 UTC