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 18:25:28 +0100
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <60upt1lumas57e78afkbij3t6skt15hgnj@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Kendall Clark wrote:
>> 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.
>
>D'oh! Fixed in 1.107.

Thanks.

>> 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.
>
>But, really, you have to take this up with someone other than me or  
>with the DAWG, I think. The Director has stated his preference for  
>the N3 mime type, and I'm accommodating that request. So while I  
>appreciate yr not being satisfied, there's nothing I can do to fix  
>that, short of removing the example completely, which isn't going to  
>happen on my say-so alone.

You can register application/prs.kendallclark.notation3 or something
like that. If the RDF DAWG wants to use Notation3 in a W3C Technical
Report and requires a media type for Notation3 for that, it's the WG's
responsibility to do what's necessary so this can be done in accordance
with RFC 4288 and the TAG's finding on internet media types, both of
which seem quite clear that use of unregistered and experimental media
types is discouraged. Use of unregistered media types in other W3C TRs
has caused considerable problems, I don't see good technical reasons to
accept such usage. I'm fine if we agree to disagree, the issue will then
be reported along with the Working Group's request to advance the
document to Candidate Recommendation status in which case The Director
will look at it.

>> 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?
>
>I prefer "www.example", and it's legal. I consider this comment to be  
>editorial and I won't be making any change with regard to it.

Well, I'm not happy but I don't feel strong enough about it to register
a formal objection.
-- 
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 17:24:45 GMT

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