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

Re: containers examples should end in /

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:39:15 +0100
Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <82221018-2A5A-45DD-B09A-885680FC0777@bblfish.net>
To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>

On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:25, "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote:

> hello all.
> On 2013-01-14 14:54 , "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>> The argument is that instead of having containers
>> with URLs such as
>> http://example.org/container1
>> they should be
>> http://example.org/container1/
> picking one over the other is a preference of the entity managing
> container URIs and should be of no concern for the protocol (i.e., LDP
> implementations should have the freedom to go one way or the other).

I did not argued for a MUST on containers ending in "/".
I was putting forward an argument for what types of URIs would be 
better to be used by the examples in the spec.

> if
> there is any place in the protocol where the URI of a containers matters
> in any way, we've done something wrong.

It's nice to make sweeping statements like that, but the more
sweeping the more likely a statement is to be wrong.

URIs, especially URLs are essential to HTTP, and they have a
structure defined in the RFC3986
"Relative Resolution"

Anyway, if you look at my argument carefully, you'll see I show
how both ways of writing containers can be made to work.
I am pointing out the consequences of doing it one way or 
the other, with the obvious conclusion that having containers
ending in "/" is more elegant for writing things out in the 
spec and more intuitive for people coming to RDF as newbies.

> cheers,
> dret.

A short message from my sponsors: Vive la France!
Social Web Architect

Received on Monday, 14 January 2013 17:39:50 UTC

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