W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2013

Re: AWWW second edition, maybe -- terminology

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:32:42 -0400
Message-ID: <51B1FD1A.50407@arcanedomain.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>

On 6/7/2013 9:56 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> But we don't have to_use_  that terminology extensively in our own
> prose, if we don't think it suits_our_  explanatory aims.

I suppose we don't >have to< but why wouldn't it be best to try and bring 
the community together around a consistent set of terminology? It seems to 
me that if there's key abstraction in HTTP and HTTP is central to Web arch, 
then we should explain how that abstraction fits into Web arch. If the 
terminology in a spec like RFC 2616 (bis) isn't serving the community well, 
then our first choice should be to work with all concerned to evolve to 
more useful terminology that we can all use consistently.

What we call things is important. Having conflicting terminology for key 
abstractions tends to cause trouble I think.

Jonathan Rees wrote:

> If there is terminology that *cannot* be explained and whose use inexorably leads to confusion, then the TAG can help lead the community away from confusion simply by being careful to avoid use of that terminology.

Sure, but I would think that a fine marker of success would be getting that 
new terminology into the pertinent specifications as well as into AWWW.

Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 15:33:17 UTC

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