- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:52:16 -0400
- To: "Appelquist Daniel (UK)" <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>
- CC: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On 6/27/2013 12:22 PM, Appelquist Daniel (UK) wrote: > And if this group is going to > try to focus its attention on the public Web then maybe we would benefit > from having a shared definition of this term? I would have thought that the TAG wants to understand the considerable synergies among the "public Web" and the many other contexts in which Web technologies are used. First of all, information from non-public systems is often published to the Web or sourced from the Web, processes which are greatly facilitated if Web-compatible datatypes, formats and languages (e.g. Javascript, CSS) are used internally as well as externally. Public Web pages are linked from a wide variety of less public contexts including private intranets, Word and PDF documents that might be on USB keys or private networks), etc. Metcalfe's law teaches us that all of this adds to the value of the public Web and to the value of the technologies used to build it. It's a really important design goal for URIs that they be embeddable in proprietary containers. Furthermore, there are synergies relating to training and education, investment in software development (some of the bills for Apache or Ruby/Rails enhancement are likely paid or indirectly justified by the use of those systems behind the firewall as well as outside.) I that that TAG will not restrict its focus just to the public Web, but rather will focus on understanding the synergies and conflicts arising from use of Web technologies in a variety of other contexts too. Maybe or maybe not having a crisp definition for the "public Web" is a useful step; I'm not sure. Noah
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2013 16:53:13 UTC