- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:11:32 +0100
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 3:48 PM, David Booth<david@dbooth.org> wrote: [On servers working in the way you described:] > They all work in this way, though not necessarily using that > terminology. That's just the terminology chosen by AWWW > to describe, at an abstract level, what happens. Okay, so AWWW is an abstraction of web practice. You say that it's describing what happens, so I presume you think that there's a high degree of fidelity there? What makes you think that? Can you not imagine different types or instances of abstractions that have a higher degree of fidelity to current practice? > Trying to change the terminology beyond that might be useful, > but it would be a much bigger undertaking and is outside the > scope of my suggestion. If you want to correct the definition of "information resource", then nothing's out of scope which deals with correcting that definition. What if that's a bigger task than you think? -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Monday, 13 July 2009 18:12:16 UTC