- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:32:42 -0400
- 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. Noah
Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 15:33:17 UTC