W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Classification of ISSUE-57 change proposals

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:47:52 +0100
Cc: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E376E450-6306-4FFC-811B-AF6960613A67@w3.org>
To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>

On 2012-03 -30, at 21:07, Jonathan A Rees wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com> wrote:
>> On 3/30/2012 11:56 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
>>> Hmm... I agree in spirit, but as an aside I quibble with the phrasing
>>> of the last part, and since terminology is really screwing us over I
>>> want to hit what you say hard. "Representation" remember is a war
>>> zone, with Roy using it one way (see REST and HTTPbis) and TimBL using
>>> it another. It is an instrument of propaganda. In Roy's view a
>>> description could very well be a representation; in TimBL's that is
>>> not enough.
>> I don't think we need to fight that war to get as far as agreeing on the
>> spirit of the Self-describing Web finding:
> I tried to be clear in my message, let me try again: I do agree with
> the spirit and what you said. I was just doing an aside, a terminology
> quibble, really quite unrelated to what you meant to say. With TAG
> members I am going to be a pain in the butt regarding terminology,
> especially "representation" - get used to it! I am trying to train
> everyone to be clear, and if they someone uses a disputed word in a
> way I don't like, to be explicit about which meaning they intend when
> they use it.


> Jonathan
Received on Sunday, 1 April 2012 08:48:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:44 UTC