On 11/7/10 10:21 PM, Tore Eriksson wrote:
Hi Phil!
Phil Archer wrote:
I know I sound like a fundamentalist in a discussion where we're trying
to find a practical, workable solution, but is a description of a toucan
a representation of a toucan? IMO, it's not. Sure, one can imagine an
HTTP response returning a very rich data stream that conveys the entire
experience of having a toucan on your desk - but the toucan ain't
actually there.
Since this distinction is, and has been for many years, debatable, why
not be pragmatic and leave this choice to the users themselves? If
someone thinks that a web page consisting of a picture and a textual
description is an adequate represenation of a Toucan, let them return
one over HTTP (as long as they are aware that the web page itself is a
different resource yada yada...). People expecting the Toucan to fly
down the wire and appear at their desk might me disappointed but most
users will probably be happy with the low-fidelity version.
Tore Eriksson
_______________________________________________________________
Tore Eriksson [tore.eriksson at po.rd.taisho.co.jp]
Tore,
Does the painting of a Toucan -- on some canvas -- infer that the
Painter or Painting Viewers expect physical manifestation? Methinks, the
Painter (an expressionist) uses signs to project observed attributes of
his/her subject (the Toucan), on a canvas, in a manner that stimulates
the minds of the Paintings Viewers. Thus, in the minds of the Viewers,
the sensation could be such that flight does occur, it just happens in
their mind.
BTW - Animation is old, so Tucan flight (in our minds) as a result of
representation is something that's been happening long before the World
Wide Web :-)
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
