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

Re: Change Proposal 25 for HttpRange-14

From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:05:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGnGFMJ3EP+9R2krbA6rDq8Y13aVk+A+6_DrPSvUx0rGv6Z_4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
As a friendly amendment, can I suggest you replace

is a current representation of the information resource identified by W

with

is content of the resource identified by W

or however you want to express this. You can try to define "content",
or decide that it doesn't need to be defined, or refer to
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir/latest/ , as you prefer, it
doesn't matter much at this point.

Then, also propose deleting the definition of "information resource",
since it won't be needed any more.

The difficulty you need to circumvent somehow is that not everyone
will interpret "representation" to imply content. E.g. there is the
situation in the Document: case where the [nominal] representation
received is not content, which would make for a nominal representation
from a URI that is not a representation of what the URI identifies...
I think that would be confusing. But a possible approach would be to
define "representation" in a way you like and use it instead of
"content" or "instance"; I don't favor this approach but if you can
make it work it's fine.

Jonathan

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
> I have written the below idea up as a change proposal
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/ChangeProposal25
>
> The number "25" has no semantics.
>
> Tim
>
> On 2012-03 -25, at 12:35, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>
>> [...]  the basic idea of giving a way of the server making it
>> explicit that the URI identifies not the document but is subject, without the internet round-trip time of 303,
>> is a useful path to go down.
>>
>> If Ian Davis and co would be happy with it, how about a header
>>
>>       200 OK
>>       Document:  foo123476;doc=yes
>>
>> which means "Actually the URI you gave is not the URI of a this document,
>> but the URI of this document is  foo123476.html (a relative URI).
>>
>> - This is the same as doing a 301 to foo123476.html and returning the same content.
>> - Non-data clients will ignore it, and just show users the page anyway.
>> - Saves the round trip time of 301
>> - Avoids having the same URI for the document and its subject.
>>
>> This will dismantle HTTP range-14 a bit more, but still never give the same
>> URI to two things.  It would mean code changes to my client code and just a reconfig
>> change to Ian's server.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 22:06:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:43 UTC