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

Re: FW: HTTP Header Use Case

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:49:55 +0000
Message-ID: <45CA1F53.2020106@hpl.hp.com>
To: public-grddl-wg@w3.org
CC: "Carroll, Jeremy John" <jeremy.carroll@hp.com>


Test case at

http://jena.sourceforge.net/test/grddl/httpHeaders.xml

Implemented by Jena GRDDL Reader SVN copy (i.e. next release)

Comments tomorrow.

Jeremy


McBride, Brian wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
> Sent: 06 February 2007 17:58
> To: Ian Davis; McBride, Brian
> Cc: public-grddl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: HTTP Header Use Case
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 7 February 2007 18:50:35 GMT

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