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

Re: Proposal to amend the httpRange-14 resolution

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:55:22 -0400
To: Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, トーレ エリクソン <tore.eriksson@po.rd.taisho.co.jp>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <1333299322.2181.100158.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 22:01 +0900, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 5:09 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> > The basic requirements behind issue-57 and the httpRange-14
> > rework are:
> >
> >  1. There must be a standard, algorithmic way for a client,
> >  given a target URI, to find the URI owner's implicit or
> >  explicit *definition* for that URI.
> >
> >  2. The URI owner must be able to provide an arbitrarily
> >  detailed definition (though not necessarily for a URI of
> >  every possible syntactic form).
> >
> >  3. In the case where a URI owner has served a page with
> >  no explicit URI definition, the algorithm must specify an
> >  implicit definition (though possibly empty).
> 
> I just don't get this last requirement. Why is this necessary and how
> can you define something if you don't know what it is? And what is an
> empty definition, especially considering the OWA?

An empty definition means that the interpretation is not constrained at
all by the definition.  This is semantically equivalent to having no
definition.  

This last requirement is necessary because we need to decide how to
handle the case of the 10^11 web pages for which the URI owner has not
explicitly said anything about how the page's URI should be
interpreted.  


-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Sunday, 1 April 2012 16:55:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:14 UTC