W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Mail regarding draft-wilde-accept-post

From: Erik Wilde <erik.wilde@dret.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:23:41 -0400
To: Benjamin Armintor <armintor@gmail.com>, draft-wilde-accept-post@ietf.org, LDP WG <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, LDP WG <public-ldp@w3.org>, public-ldp-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <571685BD.3090003@dret.net>
hello benjamin.

On 2016-04-18 13:37, Benjamin Armintor wrote:
> Apologies for commenting on an expired draft, but as it is relevant to
> specification work in other projects:

please notice that while the draft-wilde-accept-post draft has expired, 
the header itself actually has been registered. we prepared the draft 
separately at first, but the header ended up being specified and 
registered as part of the LDP spec:

https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-ldp-20150226/#header-accept-post

> I see no facility in the Accept-Post draft for indicating that no
> body/entity will be accepted, whereas I do see a use case for this in
> the case of LDP containers that create RDFsources consisting solely of
> server-managed triples. Without introducing a keyword, I had hoped to
> indicate this by returning: Accept-Post: */*; q=0
> ... but I see that section 3 disallows the quality/preference fields. Do
> the authors have a recommendation in alternative?

i am cc'ing the W3C's LDP lists, and i hope that you can expect a 
response from those people still using them (and because your question 
is about LDP anyway, i hope you will get a response).

kind regards,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:erik.wilde@dret.net |
            | http://dret.net/netdret    |
            | http://twitter.com/dret    |
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2016 19:24:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 19 April 2016 19:24:12 UTC