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

Re: ldp-ISSUE-24 (remain deleted): Should DELETED resources remain deleted? [Linked Data Platform core]

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 10:25:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CALcoZipxo==oXCXAr-+=R=Sgv4y6hE3oNjReq=JAPvojOengwg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
Cc: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, "Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Eric,

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:
> * Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> [2012-10-21 17:19-0400]
>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> wrote:
>> > Hi Mark,
>> >
>> >> Nothing else can be promised by servers or expected by clients,
>> >> at least without defining HTTP extensions.
>> >
>> > Why not?
>> > Any server is allowed to promise something more.
>>
>> Only with an HTTP extension, yes.
>
> I can think of three interpretations of "HTTP extension":

FWIW, I should be clear that I don't think HTTP extensions are
required in general for what the group wants to accomplish here. I was
just claiming that it's required for some things currently in the
spec. The solution IMO, isn't to deploy extensions, but to fix the
spec.

>   1 HTTP Extension Framework
>     http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/ietf-http-ext/draft-frystyk-http-extensions-03
>
>   2 Task-specific protocol extensions like WebDav or HTTP Over TLS
>
>   3 Task-specific uses of the protocol such as those that might be
>     described by WSDL, WADL or only human-readable documentation, e.g.
>     Twitter GET statuses/mentions_timeline
>     https://dev.twitter.com/docs/api/1.1/get/statuses/mentions_timeline
>
> I believe 3 is in line with the LDBP Submission.

I'm not sure how that Twitter example relates, but I don't believe 3
can be considered an HTTP extension as it's information that's
separate from the HTTP envelope.

>> Whoa, that was unexpected. Before I pick apart why that's an awful
>> idea, I'd like to ask whether others agree or disagree.
>
> I agree. I'd not expect somone to use firefox to perform a POST to
> create a new, e.g. bug report any more than I'd expect them to have
> meaningful interactions with any other web service which consumes and
> produces machine-readable data.

Well yes, but as Andy suggested, that's the data, not the protocol.
Everything that can speak HTTP, should be able to talk to everything
else that speaks HTTP... except for the data.

Mark.
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 14:26:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:42 UTC