- From: Tore Eriksson <tore.eriksson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 23:11:12 +0900
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, ??? ????? <tore.eriksson@po.rd.taisho.co.jp>, www-tag@w3.org
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:55 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > 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. I'm sorry, but that is not very convincing. How would an empty definition (a.k.a. no definition) help you with this? Tore
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 14:11:49 UTC