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

Re: issue-34 example

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:58:49 -0500
To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD231602.E2FA%erik.wilde@emc.com>
On 2013-01-21 15:42 , "John Arwe" <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>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

indeed, a very bad typo.

"there may be constraints on payload, but defining and enforcing those
should not be something LDP is concerned with."

thanks for catching this! cheers,

dret.
Received on Monday, 21 January 2013 14:59:36 UTC

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