W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > December 2012

Re: I added some comments to the wiki page for ISSUE-37

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:09:52 -0800
Message-ID: <50C79310.5080607@oracle.com>
To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Right now we have LDP resources which can be members of collections and
we have collections.   If we treated collections just like any other LDPR then they
could be created, deleted, added to collections and retrieved just like any other LDPR.

Collections for content negotiations seems like a special case.

All the best, Ashok

On 12/11/2012 11:32 AM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
> hello henry.
>
> On 2012-12-11 5:44 , "Henry Story"<henry.story@bblfish.net>  wrote:
>> I am very keen on containers within containers.
> and we definitely shouldn't disallow them, i would say. i think we should
> be silent. there are many many things people/applications may want to
> overlay in terms or more advanced semantics and interactions, but unless
> we have clear requirement to support interactions, we can just leave this
> to implementations or LDPv2.
>
>> - Perhaps containers in containers can be used for content negotiation. A
>> content negotiated resources would just be a container
>>    that only has documents that are representations of one another.
> for this it might be useful to consider HTTP content negotiation, unless
> you're ok with making your content negotiation invisible on the HTTP level.
>
> cheers,
>
> dret.
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 20:10:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 May 2013 13:44:26 UTC