Re: Fwd: Practical issues arising from the "null relative URIs"-hack

Great point, Kingsley. One possible explanation (just a wild guess):
so that the companies involved with LDP can soon claim "W3C standard
compliance" while knowing that no one else will bother to implement
such a specification?

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> On 4/1/14 8:19 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>
>> Also, I think the risks are quite bounded, because this design is attached
>> to the current three LDP containers.   That is, this decision only applies
>> if you're dealing with one of three particular classes of resource
>> (ldp:BasicContainer, ldp:DirectContainer, and ldp:IndirectContainer).
>> Personally, frankly, I expect 5 years from now all three of those containers
>> will be considered obsolete.   We're really just starting to figure out LDP,
>> and my sense is several details of how those containers are defined will be
>> problematic, once we have some more experience.   But for now, they're good
>> enough to move forward a bit, and as we learn more we can define new and
>> better ones.
>
>
> I struggle to understand why one would design with inevitable obsolescence
> in mind. Seriously now, if this was the basis of AWWW where would the Web be
> today?
>
> One thing I do agree with though is simply this: any spec that boils down to
> poorly derived compromises of AWWW is doomed for obsolescence, and that will
> occur in less than 5 years.
>
> If a spec isn't implemented by anyone, or a tiny minority, in the context of
> the Web it is basically as good as obsolete, IMHO.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2014 13:11:11 UTC