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

Re: AWWW second edition, maybe -- terminology

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:59:19 -0400
Message-ID: <51B20357.3080509@openlinksw.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
On 6/7/13 7:48 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> Futher to discussion at the recent f2f, and With a lot of help from
> Marcos and Yves, we have a staging area on GitHub [1] for a _possible_
> second edition [2] of AWWW [3].  I emphasise that the TAG have _not_
> yet decided to do this, rather we are _considering_ it.  I have said
> I'll consider trying to edit a new edition _provided_ we can satisfy
> ourselves that the scope of the effort can be effectively limited.
>
> Of the various wedges whose thin edges we can anticipate threatening
> to turn into dangerous scope-creep, terminology is definitely high on
> the list.
>
> One example: At the f2f, Tim Berners-Lee mentioned that he would
> prefer to drop all use of the word 'resource'.  I too would like to do
> this, and indeed I recently posted [2] to this list a pointer to a
> talk I gave which introduces an approach to the httpRange-14 issue
> which avoids the word.
>
> To try to take this conversation forward, [1][2] contain (with diffs
> highlighted) a new Abstract, which removes 'resource', and introduces
> the 'active' aspect of the Web, as follows:
>
>    The World Wide Web uses relatively simple technologies with
>    sufficient scalability, efficiency and utility that they have
>    resulted in a remarkable interconnected space of information and
>    services, growing across languages, cultures and media. In an effort
>    to preserve these properties of the space as the technologies
>    evolve, this architecture document discusses the core design
>    components of the Web. They are identification of information and
>    services, representation of information state and service requests,
>    and the protocols that support the interaction between agents in the
>    space. We relate core design components, constraints, and good
>    practices to the principles and properties they support.
>
> Does this look like the kind of direction we'd like to move in?

+1000

Bury "Resource" it's a confusion vector like no other. It turns the 
ingenuity inherent in AWWW on its head.
>
> ht
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3ctag/webarch
> [2] http://w3ctag.github.io/webarch/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013May/0056.html


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen






Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 15:59:41 UTC

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