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

Re: naming resources - Slug-Header

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 04:45:06 -0500
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD144B50.DE13%erik.wilde@emc.com>
hello all.

On 2013-01-10 10:39 , "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Henry Story wrote:
>>On 8 Jan 2013, at 11:54, Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
>>wrote:
>>>An alternative proposal might be to just take the rdfs:label (or maybe
>>>from list of established vocab for 'labels') from the POSTed body as a
>>>'hint' for a name (?)
>> That seems to be a compatible proposal.
>Well, as soon as you have two ways of doing the same thing, you end up
>dealing with conflicts (setting precedence, be sure that a client that
>uses only RDF is not ignoring the SLUG header etc...). It is far better
>to 
>avoid that kind of duplicates.

+1; anything that can be handled on the protocol level should be handled
on the protocol level. falling back to content sniffing should only be
done in those cases where we cannot properly expose interaction semantics
through HTTP mechanisms. so my vote goes to adopting Slug, and using this
as the only mechanism.

cheers,

dret.
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 09:45:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:44 UTC