W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > October 2010

Re: SPARQL 1.1 Protocol: Format of fault messages

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 12:53:03 +0100
Cc: Richard Newman <rnewman@twinql.com>, "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B759274C-C356-4839-9AE2-5CC86159CBEA@cyganiak.de>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
On 4 Oct 2010, at 00:47, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>> Clients don't necessarily have a JSON or Turtle parser on board,
>>> and while especially JSON parsers are easy to get by these days,
>>> and are just a few K of code, demanding one just for error
>>> messages would be a bit strange IMO.
>> Indeed... but I'd say a JSON parser is less of a burden on a client
>> than an XML parser, which is less of one than an RDFa parser.
> So we have to decide whether there are or will be sufficiently more
> intermediaries with JSON and without an XML parser than end clients
> with XML parsers to warrant involving an extra language.

There can be no justification for requiring a separate parser just for  
error reporting.

Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 12:00:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:11 UTC