- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:44:36 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > If you think it is going to help progress on HTML5 for us to replay > fifteen years of debate on what a resource is for the Web, then please > explain why Ian's opinion is sufficient to contradict existing practice > on the Web, all other W3C specifications, the normative Internet > standard, my own dissertation, and the entire world-view of RDF. It's not all other W3C specifications (I looked at CSS specs, DOM specs, HTML4, XMLHttpRequest, SVG, and XML, and they all used "resource" in the generic sense of "bag of bits", not the abstract sense you advocate). It's also not all internet standards, e.g. ECMAScript uses it in the generic sense too. I don't think your dissertation really has any bearing on this (or can we include my blog posts in this dicussion also?), and RDF's world view is so out of touch with the needs and desires of most Web developers that it really is stretching things to invoke RDF here. If you think HTTP and other specs should continue to use the abstract terminology you advocate, please explain why your opinion is sufficient to contradict the terminology used by the majority of Web developers. > HTML is not a standalone specification. It is part of the World Wide > Web architecture. If you don't want to standardize within the > constraints of the Web, then feel free to change the name of the > specification to something else. The W3C asked us to rename it to HTML5, actually. It used to be called Web Applications 1.0. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 00:37:03 UTC