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

Re: issue-34 example

From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:42:24 -0500
To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFBC159E96.D9BB3446-ON85257AFA.00509044-85257AFA.0050CA51@us.ibm.com>
> that seems like something that's completely out of scope of the LDP
> protocol. yes, there may be constraints on payload, but defining and
> enforcing those should now be something LDP is concerned with.


typo?  was now or not the intent?
It's a "somewhat plausible" read either way, although my instinct is that 
'not' was the intent [LDP is/should not be concerned with validation]

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
Received on Monday, 21 January 2013 14:43:51 UTC

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