W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > July 2014

RE: Call for consensus on defining IRI template expansion (ISSUE-30)

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:14:40 -0700
To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <023101cfa645$c6509dc0$52f1d940$@gmx.net>
On 21 Jul 2014 at 12:36, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>> Think of an HTML form using GET.
> And more specifically, think of the enctype attribute on <form>.
> It can have the following values:
> - application/x-www-form-urlencoded
> - multipart/form-data
> - text/plain
> These are ways to tell the client (browsers) how the values should be
> We're doing the exact same here: Hydra's representation is HTML's enctype.

Right. There are only 2 schemes (have never seen text/plain be used for
anything other than email) because it is basically impossible to send files
with one of them.

> @Markus: notice there are 3 values above by the way;
> maybe another (minor) case to not choose just a boolean:
> new alternatives can always come up, even for something simple as <form>.

Sure. The question is, how likely will something else come up and are there
other ways in which we could add that later?

>> I think we should try to avoid the need to handle all the complexity that
>> Turtle escaping introduces. I don't want to introduce a dependency on
>> and I don't want developers to have to deal with it (or use a Turtle
>> library). The proposed expansion mechanism allows makes it trivial to
>> values: a simple regex or a couple of lines of code are more than enough.
> Strong +1 here, very good argument for not doing Turtle.

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2014 07:15:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:42 UTC