Re: issue-34 example

Hi all,


On Jan 21, 2013, at 09:58, "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote:

> 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."


Agreed.  I would be very opposed to enforced restrictions in the LDP spec, although they might be locally allowed for particular applications that run *on top of* LDP services.

I agree with Andy that general RDF should be able to added to LDP servers.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood


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

Received on Monday, 21 January 2013 15:27:44 UTC