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

Re: issue-34 example

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:27:17 -0500
Cc: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F01453C7-F1F9-43E8-ABD3-E7E7DE0C78A5@3roundstones.com>
To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
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

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