- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:46:06 -0400
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Jonathan Rees wrote: > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Xiaoshu Wang<wangxiao@musc.edu> wrote: > >> Jonathan Rees wrote: >> >>> Xiaoshu, >>> >>> The architecture you advocate is plausible. The preferred architecture >>> that I hear coming the TAG is a different one. The TAG obviously can't >>> go back and change RFC2616 and expect anyone to listen, but it is >>> required by charter to give architectural advice. You can follow it or >>> not, that's your choice. >>> >>> >> Who said that we need to change RFC2616 to make it work? >> > > I sure didn't! You misunderstood. I meant to say that almost arbitrary > use of content negotiation, such as what you want to do, seems > technically OK according to RFC 2616, because it never says precisely > what a "representation" is. The cool-uris-for-semweb opinion and > httpRange-14 give specific good-practice-style advice that is supposed > to discourage certain otherwise defensible uses of GET/200 and content > negotiation. Technically speaking, any attempt to make a server stay > within the TAG's advice would mean holding it to a contract that it > didn't sign. The TAG doesn't have jurisdiction to change RFC 2616 to > disallow things that are currently allowed. Therefore its advice, > while some people may find it persuasive (especially in the > linked-data world), is not rule of law but just a request for a > certain "good practice". So it is the TAG who must persuade you, not > the other way around. That's why I take your and Michael's email as > requests for a piece of writing. The case hasn't been made clearly > enough. > > I didn't want to defend either architecture just now, but don't you agree that > 1. you are promoting one pattern of use of conneg > 2. the cool-uris/httpRange-14/etc. advice promotes a different pattern > 3. both patterns can seen as compatible with RFC 2616, and > 4. the two architectures are just plain different? > These seems terribly neutral and uncontroversial to me. > > But I should note that if you want a tweak to the syntax of accept > headers you are asking for an extension to the HTTP protocol. That's > easier than getting agreement to a restriction, which is what the TAG > would like to do. > > If we can first agree on these basics, we can then put the two > architectures side by side and see how well each meets various goals > that we might have. The real difference between them might be a > difference in what each is trying to accomplish. > That is a very good summary. But the question is: what is the problem? If the problem is: let us find a way to uniform access to metadata/descriptor" etc. Then, I don't even know what the problem is, then how can we propose anything to do something about it? Then, please define the "metadata/descriptor" first. I want to emphasize that I am not opposing people to use 303. That is *their* design choice and I have no business to tell them what is best for them. What I am opposing is the practice of proposing an approach based on ambiguous concept. I came to conneg not because I prefer it but because it is the only choice. All alternatives force me to ask questions that bring the questions themselves into questions. That puts me in a forever loop but I need to get out of that. I hope that TAG can understand that the latter is my purpose but not "conneg". Xiaoshu
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 15:46:47 UTC