Re: Call for Two Year Feature Freeze -- to httpRange-14 resolution

On 29 March 2012 23:41, Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net> wrote:

> A little more operational detail please. Are you saying leave the 2005
> resolution, which has caused so much strife, untouched? Or have the
> TAG publish a document codifying it? (I can understand if you don't
> like mine, maybe another one.) Start down Rec track with it? Do you
> disagree with my suggestion to strengthen the resolution to replace
> "information resource" with "content" or "instance", to try to end at
> least some of the suffering and deal with the Flickr case? Why is this
> change proposal different from, and superior to, the other
> always-content proposals already submitted, see
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/TagIssue57Responses ? What will be different in
> two years? Can you provide URIs relevant to the read/write idea and
> explain how it relates?
>

A nice infographic pertaining to web usage and growth:

"What happens in an internet minute"

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cy9yfDwJpk4/T3kT7y9DZyI/AAAAAAAAFb0/yjG_iAyNCSo/s830/What+Happens+in+an+Internet+Minute.jpeg


>
> Thanks
> Jonathan
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In line with:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/uddp/change-proposal-call.html
> >
> > Calls for : "Reinforcement of the status quo".
> >
> > The proposal simply states, what the title says, and calls for a two year
> > feature freeze on this issue
> >
> >
> >
> > Benefits
> > =======
> >
> > - Continued meteoric rise of the web of documents
> >
> > - Continued emergence of linked data
> >
> > - A chance for nascent read/write, web of applications, to come into
> > fruition, based on existing arch
> >
> >
> > Costs
> > =====
> >
> > - Potential continued performance issues for those that choose to deploy
> the
> > 303 pattern
> >
> >
> >
> > *Disclaimer* my suggestion is based on work done in the W3C Read Write
> Web
> > Community group, but are my personal opinion, and do not necessarily
> reflect
> > the views of that group.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Melvin
> >
>