Re: AWWW second edition, maybe -- terminology

Noah Mendelsohn writes:

> Henry Thompson wrote:
>
>> One example: At the f2f, Tim Berners-Lee mentioned that he would
>> prefer to drop all use of the word 'resource'.
>
> Maybe, but I note that even the proposed "bis" version of HTTP
> continues to emphasize use of the term resource.

True, but note that your reference [1] is out-of-date:  see [2] for
pointers to the latest draft.

> It seems to me that the TAG's role should be to unify, and then help
> explain the proper use of terminology relating to Web architecture.

I agree that we have to do our best to be consistent with, and even
explain, the terminology of the normative specs, as HTTPbis will be.

But we don't have to _use_ that terminology extensively in our own
prose, if we don't think it suits _our_ explanatory aims.

> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03.html#the.resource.identified.by.a.request

ht

[2] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]

Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 13:56:30 UTC