W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: RDF QLs within a larger language

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:03:05 +0100
To: "'Dirk-Willem van Gulik'" <dirkx@webweaving.org>
Cc: <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000101c45d53$5042a470$0a01a8c0@atlas>

> > Better to have an explicitly streamable format and
> > ask for it by MIME type as there is so much custom server and client
> > code.
> 
> with some sort of Accept or alike hinting.

Yes - I agree "Accept" or an "Accept"-like mechanism is best.

	Andy

-------- Original Message --------
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org <>
> Date: 
> 
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> > I wasn't thinking of having a controlled flow - just a simple, single
> > TCP stream.
> 
> I expected that. And hence I see no fundamental benefit of
> ordering on granule/request/reply level for the protocol itself.
> 
> Now on implementation:
> 
> > rows.  Think SAX for result rows.
> ..cut..
> > Now the client can incrementally parse this and generate each row of
> > the
> ..cut..
> > As I said, it is not a good idea :-) - it only saves the client from
> > having to have such a parser.
> 
> You argue for a certain type of parser which may have a
> certain benefit in a certain case. I'd suggest that if that
> is important in a certain case (and I am sure there are others) then:
> 
> > Better to have an explicitly streamable format and
> > ask for it by MIME type as there is so much custom server and client
> > code.
> 
> with some sort of Accept or alike hinting.
> 
> Dw
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 17:03:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:19 GMT