Resource and Representation Terms

This page is one way to express support or opposition to the Gloss standard terminology for resource/representation change proposal re ISSUE-81, rather than using n^2 email messages whose content is only +1/-1.

Support

• Dan Connolly
• Julian Reschke (partial support; adding the proposed text would enhance the spec, while actually using the correct terms throughout the specs would be preferable)
• Graham Klyne (but would prefer "wholesale adoption of the previously standardized terminology")
• Maciej Stachowiak (tentatively support the added text or anything similar in spirit that conveys the same information; no opinion to give on wholesale changes in terminology, since that is not a proposal currently before the group)
• Larry Masinter: specs should at a minimum describe how the terminology used in them might be used differently than the same terms used in highly-related specs. Of course I would prefer consistent terminology, but I have some sympathy with the observation that other specs aren't always consistent either. I would prefer it if W3C working groups would push the TAG to update the "Architecture of the World Wide Web" document so that the same terminology can be used in all web-related specs. And I've blogged about some of the terminology issues.
• Krzysztof Maczyński: Inclusion of the proposed text (maybe with some polishing in response to comments) would be an improvement. However, as many others, I'd also prefer http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#reuse-terms-gp (a Rec) to be followed. (Cf. "data resource" in http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/ out of curiosity.)

Oppose

• Ian Hickson
• Anne van Kesteren

Please send novel arguments to the public-html mailing list; feel free to cite them here, but make sure to send them there.