W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > February 2007

Re: HTTP Header Use Case

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:58:01 -0600
To: Ian Davis <Ian.Davis@talis.com>, "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Cc: public-grddl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1170784681.7497.292.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 09:45 +0000, Ian Davis wrote:
> [...] There is no
> provision in the existing schemas for extension elements and changing
> the schemas to accommodate RDF would require an extended international
> standardisation effort, likely to take many years. 

Well, that makes the case pretty well.

I'm interested to know if that convinces all the implementors to add
it. I contacted Dave Beckett in IRC, and he seems willing.
  http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2007-02-06#T15-25-46
Likewise Dom for the W3C XSLT-based GRDDL service.

Chime seems concerned about WG bandwidth to "digest any complications".
I can sympathize with that; I don't see bandwidth in my own
schedule for testing an implementation work.

Brian, I'm very interested to know the HP/Jena position on whether
this feature is worth adding. It seems entirely likely that
the testing effort will fall to you. Jeremy seems to be cranking
out tests faster than I can even look them over; if you can work
with him to build some tests for this feature and use your
newly established CVS-powers to migrate them to the WG test
suite, that would probably make the sale.

I haven't seen any technical argument that says this feature
shouldn't go in; just some hesitation about WG bandwidth,
IETF liaison overhead, etc. I can sympathize with an argument
to postpone this feature on the basis of those costs.
But I haven't seen any argument that the feature is not
The Right Thing, yet.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 17:58:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:47 GMT