W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > January 2006

Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL Protocol: suboptimal examples

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:59:55 +0100
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <1arpt111d3p4poh5jort2uj9u9timdpqvd@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Kendall Clark wrote:
>Okay, the latest editor's draft contains fixes for most of these  
>comments:
>
>editor's draft $Revision: 1.106 $ of $Date: 2006/01/29 16:16:47 $
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/proto-wd/
>
>Notably,
>
>Changed some mime type thingies:
>- added charset to text/plain in 2.2.1.9
>- added charset to text/html in 2.2.1.10
>- added a doctype declaration in 2.2.1.10

I see this in the changelog but the example doesn't seem to have a
document type declaration still. Ah, looking at the source, it's there
but not properly escaped, so it won't show up.

>- removed application/dime from the SOAP example
>
>However, re: N3 MIME type being unregistered, I refer you to http:// 
>www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3.html, and if that doesn't satisfy  
>you, I urge you to take this issue up with the Director or with Tim  
>Berners-Lee, which ever seems to you most appropriate.

I criticized the lack of a proper Notation3 specification in 2001 on the
www-rdf-interest list. Such a specification would be required in order
to get the type registered in the IETF tree. It's unlikely that the type
would ever be registered though, the encoding of Notation3 resources is
UTF-8 while when used without a charset parameter e.g. RFC 2616 requires
to assume the ISO-8859-1 encoding. So even if use of unregistered media
types is acceptable, the specific type here isn't. A more appropriate
type would be e.g. application/vnd.w3c.notation3 which could easily be
registered. So no, this does not satisfy me.

Regarding

  I also think using "my.example" in the Host: headers is suboptimal
  e.g. due to <http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#Translations>. I
  think a simple "example.org" or similar would be better here.

I'm not very fond of using 'www.example' instead; while legal, common
practise is to use example.org or www.example.org; is there a good
reason not to use that?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Sunday, 29 January 2006 16:59:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:50 GMT