Re: nameValueForms: ok to postpone?

Kendall Clark wrote:
> 
> On Mar 27, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
>> There have been some discussion of how SPARQL interacts
>> with the ?name=value HTML form syntax/protocol.

(I see a discussion mainly about RDF forms)

SPARQLer uses HTMLs forms with action being the service and the method being 
GET.  I hope it's a correct translation of WSDL to HTTP/GET - it's not done 
mechanically.

 >> I think
>> it's an interesting design space to noodle on; it came
>> up in a public comment and I bumped into it enough times
>> that I was convinced to add a WG issue.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#nameValueForms
>>
>> I have chatted with a few of you about it; everybody
>> (including the original commentor) is OK to postpone it.
>>
>> Does anybody 2nd this proposal to postpone it?
> 
> Seconded. (FWIW, I probably would have voted against including it on  
> our issues list, but apparently that's at the chair's discretion.)

Agreed - postpone (my pref would be "not-an-issue" but if it helps the record, 
postpone is acceptable).

> 
> Cheers,
> Kendall
> 
	Andy