W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: ISSUE-33

From: Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:14:56 +0100
Message-ID: <51192710.4090208@salzburgresearch.at>
To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Hello Erik,

On 11/02/13 17:58, Wilde, Erik wrote:
> On 2013-02-11 17:48 , "Sergio Fernández"
>> To the best of my knowledge, currently there are two scenarios where
>> that's possible:
>> * Binary resources using the Accept-Ranges HTTP header
>
> it's HTTP, so any resource is binary (so to speak). HTTP doesn't care
> whether it's serving MP4 or RDF/XML.

See my question below.

>> * HTML resources using rel="next" rel="prev" headers
>
> that's a bit surprising here. that really doesn't have anything to do with
> range requests.

Exactly, two _different_ scenarios.

I pointed that because for me maybe LDPR pagination could make sense 
when a LDP server also delivers HTML representations of the resource 
managed.

>> As I said in the call, I'm not sure how this fits with RDF resources...
>> So, if we don't find both a proper use case and a clean proposal for the
>> protocol, I'd prefer not to force having pagination on LDPR.
>
> as long as stable representations are being served, byte requests are
> working fine for any media type.

Maybe that's the point: what's for you binary safe representation of a 
graph?

Best,

-- 
Sergio Fernández
Salzburg Research
+43 662 2288 318
Jakob-Haringer Strasse 5/II
A-5020 Salzburg (Austria)
http://www.salzburgresearch.at
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 17:15:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 May 2013 13:44:29 UTC