- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:45:27 -0400
- To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
[less cc:] Tracker, I write this email primarily for you. This whole thread is about ISSUE-53 [1]. Current LRDD discussion bears on ISSUE-62 [2]. Xiaoshu, you're essentially pressing the TAG again to make a formal statement on recommended use of conneg, as Michael Hausenblas did in February [3]. I'm sorry that this has fallen to the periphery of the TAG business heap. The best I can do now is to point you to the advice [4] that we gave to the Cool URIs for the Semweb editors, which agrees with Eran's reading. Jonathan [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/53 [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62 [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Feb/0074.html [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/02/28-minutes#item01 On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Xiaoshu Wang<wangxiao@musc.edu> wrote: > Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Xiaoshu Wang [mailto:wangxiao@musc.edu] >>> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 4:17 PM >>> >>> Now, given one information, you are proposing three mechanisms to >>> specify it. Isn't it obvious that something is *fundamentally* wrong >>> about the proposal? >>> >> >> No. That's like saying an HTML document should never repeat any of the >> links provided in the HTTP header, etc. > > Of course, it shouldn't. In fact, no HTTP header should use URI except the > Content-type, which unfortunately is not defined in this way. > >> The reality is that there isn't any single solution that satisfies all the >> use cases we have. After over a year of debating it, this combination of >> three methods is the best we have come up with, and it works fine. Is it a >> beautiful solution with clean architecture? No. But it is the only solution >> we can deploy today and expect people to use. >> > > Define your "fineness"? Making something works does not mean solving the > desired problem. If you know the solution is not clean, you should not that > it should not be proposed at this level because it will have long term > effects. >> >> If you read the proposal, it clearly goes through the list of available >> methods and states why this approach was chosen. >> > > Nope. Your evaluation on content negotiation is very vague and, in my > opinion, partial. > > Xiaoshu >> >> EHL
Received on Saturday, 27 June 2009 22:46:06 UTC