- From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:05:12 -0700
- To: pedro winstley <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>, "Lars G. Svensson" <lars.svensson@web.de>
- Cc: Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <a720df50-ddb6-803a-c587-26a1d01cf738@lbl.gov>
I am looking at https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/ Following the link to the editor's draft at https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/, and also from https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Main_Page On 9/25/19 11:52 AM, pedro winstley wrote: > Lars & Annette > Please can you provide URLs of the doc you are referencing, and not > just section numbers. We cannot have any ambiguity at this stage, it > will waste time > Many thanks > Peter > > On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 19:49, Lars G. Svensson <lars.svensson@web.de > <mailto:lars.svensson@web.de>> wrote: > > I have the impression that we're not looking at the same document: In > the current ED there is no §2.1 since that content has moved to §7... > > I also don't understand where you see two similar QSA approaches. > > And I fully agree that not all web developers agree that query string > negotiation is the best way of doing negotiation. We also don't > mandate > that (just as we don't mandate the use of http negotiation). QSA > is one > way of doing it. If a web developer wants to implement profile > negotiation without query strings, she is free to do that. But if she > does it with query strings, we want to keep that interoperable, and > that's why we say "this is the way to do it". So we're in full > agreement > "that there are many ways in which one can use the abstract model to > code up a content negotiation strategy and the QSA approach offers one > of them." Can you point me (and Nick and Rob) to text passages that > claim differently and preferably also propose text that resolves > your issue? > > Thanks, > > Lars > > Am 25.09.2019 um 20:03 schrieb Annette Greiner: > > The issue about whether that section is normative needs to be > resolved > > for me to support moving to CR. It's particularly troubling to me > > since I did rewrite that section to address that, the changes were > > accepted, and then they were somehow edited back out by subsequent > > work. I realize the editing process can be chaotic with many > > contributors, so I'm not looking to blame anyone for this. My > goal had > > been and remains to clarify that there are many ways in which > one can > > use the abstract model to code up a content negotiation strategy and > > the QSA approach offers one of them. Since that rewrite, the > document > > now offers two similar QSA-based approaches and a statement in > section > > 2.1 that conformance to one of them or to header-based conneg is > > required for conformance to the spec. That isn't what we agreed > to. My > > main concern with this is to acknowledge that web developers do not > > all agree that query strings are the best way to handle > > differentiating requests, and I don't think that we should be in the > > position of legislating development styles. > > -Annette > > > > On 9/25/19 10:05 AM, lars.svensson@web.de > <mailto:lars.svensson@web.de> wrote: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> Thanks for giving us editors of conneg-by-ap another 24 hours > to fix > >> open issues with the document. We have addressed the following: > >> > >> 1. The syntax for Accept-Profile now uses angle brackets around the > >> URIs in order to cleanly separate the profile URI from q-values, > >> other parameters or other profile URIs [0,1]. This resolves Rob > >> Sanderson's first objection. A question has been sent to Rob if > he is > >> satisfied with the outcome [2] and he has confirmed this [3]. > >> 2. The three issues that were still in the document have been > removed > >> since they were either closed already (#1041) or had been resolved > >> but not closed (#290) or resolved but without any response from the > >> original poster over four weeks (#678). This resolves Rob > Sanderson's > >> second objection. A question has been sent to Rob if he is > satisfied > >> with the outcome [2] and he has confirmed this [3]. > >> 3. The document now contains a definition of "functional > profile" in > >> the definition section [4] while all other text about functional > >> profiles is now in its own section in §7 [5,6]. This resolves > #1022 [7]. > >> > >> What we have not been able to address is the question about > order of > >> precedence for conflicting profile negotiation situations > (#505)[8]. > >> My understanding is that Annette requires that QSA is made > >> non-normative while Nick and Rob are not willing to step down > from a > >> full standard. I have asked Annette if this issue is a blocker for > >> her [8]. > >> > >> Regarding wide review, Peter had sent out a request for comments on > >> the 2PWD [9]. Following that, we've had responses on the comments > >> list and outside Github comments from at least Kam Hay Fung > >> [10,11,17], Erik Wilde [12], Herbert van der Sompel [13], Andreas > >> Kuckartz [14] and Gregg Kellogg [15, resolved in 16]. Following a > >> request from Nick [18], we also had feedback from CKAN developers > >> [19,20]. This shows involvement of the outside community. I > have also > >> added this to the transition request document [21]. > >> > >> With five hours left, there is little left for us editors to do, > >> except to ask you to cast your votes again. > >> > >> The editors of conneg-by-ap > >> > >> Nick, Rob and Lars > >> > >> [0] > https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/#http-getresourcebyprofile > >> [1] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/#eg-http-get > >> [2] > >> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Sep/0914.html > >> [3] > >> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Sep/0915.html > >> [4] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/#definitions and > >> > https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/larsgsvensson-functional-specification/conneg-by-ap/index.html#definitions > >> [5] > >> > https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/#functional-profiles-definition > >> [6] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/#conformance-profiles > >> [7] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1022 > >> [8] > >> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Sep/att-0913/00-part > >> [9] > >> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-comments/2019May/0002.html > >> [10] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/785 > >> [11] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/835 > >> [12] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/501#issuecomment-522503214 > >> [13] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/501#issuecomment-522523315 > >> [14] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/290#issuecomment-466656384 > >> [15] https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/662 > >> [16] > >> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-comments/2019Apr/0001.html > >> [17] > >> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-comments/2018Aug/0002.html > >> [18] > >> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Sep/att-0907/00-part > >> [19] > >> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Sep/att-0908/00-part > >> [20] > >> > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Sep/att-0910/00-part > >> [21] > >> > https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/wiki/Conneg:-Draft-Transition-Request-to-CR > >> > >> > -- Annette Greiner (she) NERSC Data and Analytics Services Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2019 19:12:47 UTC