Re: [unhosted] Internet-Draft-Draft

On 27 November 2012 15:29, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 27 November 2012 15:18, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you know if the authors are aware of the LDP WG?
>>
>
> I believe the authors are aware that work is going on with LDP, though
> perhaps not all of the intimate details.
>
> Certainly there are elements of linked data being reused in some of the
> apps I've seen.  So perhaps there could be a useful overlap between the two
> efforts.
>

FYI:

This is now an IETF draft

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-dejong-remotestorage-00.txt


>
> CC: Michiel, Francois
>
>
>>
>>  Regards,
>> Dave
>> --
>> http://about.me/david_wood
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 27, 2012, at 08:49, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> FYI: an IETF style spec underway for client side apps talking to data
>> servers ... perhaps there is some overlap with LDP
>>
>> https://michielbdejong.com/spec.txt
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: <michiel@michielbdejong.com>
>> Date: 26 November 2012 12:04
>> Subject: [unhosted] Internet-Draft-Draft
>> To: unhosted@googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>> Hi! here is a draft of our Internet Draft:
>> https://michielbdejong.com/spec.txt. The changes compared to 2012.04 are:
>> * storage-first is mentioned as a "MAY" at the end for servers, but a
>> "SHOULD" for apps (remoteStorage.js would handle this).
>> * the storage_api parameter is updated to the name of the I-D.
>> * the root scopes are renamed from ":r" and ":rw" to the more
>> understandable "root:r" and "root:rw".
>> * the "Last-Modified" header is renamed to the more correct "ETag". Since
>> these are all textual changes and not functional ones, there is no need for
>> any existing storage servers to update any of these things, but as i
>> already discussed with Niklas, remoteStorage.js would start supporting both
>> 2012.04 and this version.
>> Comments very welcome!
>> Cheers,
>> Michiel.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>