- From: Erik Wilde via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 20:29:48 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
LDP does not weasle, it's doing things right. i put quite a bit effort into trying to explain to the group that instead of defining a new protocol (and thus tightly couple clients and servers speaking that particular dialect), a much better way to go is to use HTTP as the application protocol. that's pretty much all what REST in its web flavor is about. clients shouldn't make any server-specific assumptions or have to know about them. if you're going this way, you're losing the webbyness of the web. simply document the concepts that clients should now about (media types, header fields, link relations, and so forth), and that's your "protocol". https://github.com/dret/sedola is the (admittedly pretty incomplete so far) attempt to support this style of "service description": it allows services to publish inventories of web-level concepts (so far: media types, header fields, link relations), and that's all that's needed. the protocol *is* HTTP. if you want to publish best practices for implementations, that's a different thing, and then you can say that implementations SHOULD always add "Allow", because that's a nice thing to do. but that's a very different thing from defining a protocol that's defining the rules that clients and servers must live by, or things will break. and as i said, you don't get anything out of this anyway, other than tight coupling and brittleness. clients still have to deal with 405, since by definition there is nothing bigger in scope than a single request/response interaction. clients still have to assume that in between receiving an "Allow", and sending a request using a listed method, the server may have changed its mind and no longer support the method. you simply cannot change this aspect of HTTP. -- GitHub Notif of comment by dret See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/51#issuecomment-119326981
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2015 20:29:51 UTC