- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:54:55 +0100
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Noah Mendelsohn writes: > What we call things is important. Having conflicting terminology for > key abstractions tends to cause trouble I think. > . . . > I would think that a fine marker of success would be getting > that new terminology into the pertinent specifications as well as into > AWWW. Mark Baker's point notwithstanding, and further to TBL's comments at the f2f and Jonathan Rees's remarks just now, I'm hoping we don't define _conflicting_ terminology at all. If 'resource' doesn't have any useful/definable meaning, then we won't just be using some other word for the same thing, we'll be describing the relevant aspects of web architecture that avoid that problem area altogether. Yes, that's a promissory note. But, at the risk of repeating myself, see [1] for a proof-of-concept. I'm not suggesting we adopt the terminology used therein, merely pointing to it as an example of an (I hope) useful discussion of a bit of web architecture which not only does without the _word_ 'resource', but also without any other such word. ht [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013May/0056.html -- 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 15:55:20 UTC