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

Re: issue-34 example

From: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:22:49 +0000
CC: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <32E614E7-6CCC-4B46-B8F1-73D75790F90C@uk.fujitsu.com>
To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.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
> 
> indeed, a very bad typo.
> 
> "there may be constraints on payload, but defining and enforcing those
> should not be something LDP is concerned with."
> 

I'm curious. I believe that LDP should be used by people developing Bug Tracker APIs, Cloud Management APIs, Photo Management APIs, etc, etc, etc - (using the widespread interpretation of the word "API") ... I think these kind of scenarios are important. But, does anyone else see it that way, or am I in the wrong group :) ?

Roger

> thanks for catching this! cheers,
> 
> dret.
> 
> 



Received on Monday, 21 January 2013 15:24:00 UTC

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