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

Re: Editor's Draft of ISSUE-57 URI Usage Primer

From: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:28:28 -0400
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AC83C6DE-EDE1-41C9-9B93-04887D579B07@jkemp.net>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
On Oct 4, 2012, at 2:12 AM, Jeni Tennison wrote:

> On 3 Oct 2012, at 23:22, John Kemp wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Jeni Tennison wrote:


>> I like the concept of "landing page" as being a page which "describes" something else. 
>> The word 'page', however, makes me think of web page and thus HTML - not RDF, JSON, XML et al as mentioned as possibilities in the document. These are all types of "description", are they not? They describe the thing for which they are (if a web page?) the "landing page"?
> Yes, they are still 'landing pages' even if they are not HTML pages.

Here is the Wikipedia description of a "landing page": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_page

> Do you have an alternative term? We could have a general term for resources that describe other things and use 'landing page' just for when they are in HTML, I guess. I'm not sure 'description' is the right term to use though.

Landing page describes the HTML case well, I think, as long as you ignore the marketing connotations which seem to be present.

Looking up synonyms (http://thesaurus.com/browse/description) I think I like "narrative" or "story" the best, but nothing looks perfect. Do we need to have a word/phrase that describes the "thing" or would it be sufficient to describe only the relationship between the thing described and the thing doing the description? 

"Landing page" would then continue to be used in your current example. The non-HTML resource would have the same relationship to the image, but not be a landing page. 

>> Should the document mention not only the "describes" relationship but also the "is-described-by" case?
> Yes, I think that's partly within the TODO section on hash URIs, 303s etc (4.2.1) and partly in 4.3 as mentioned to Ashok.


> Thanks for the comments!

Thanks for writing the (very clear) document :)



> Jeni
> -- 
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2012 15:28:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:48 UTC