W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [ISSUE-30] Suggestions for HTTP protocol updates

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 14:36:50 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-Id: <8FA91619-8684-4A64-A877-5F21FBFC91A6@garlik.com>
To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>
On 4 Jun 2009, at 12:50, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:

> On Thursday 04 June 2009 12:57:20 Steve Harris wrote:
>> Nothing in http://triplr.org/turtle/www.kanzaki.com/works/ expects  
>> the
>> *client* to break apart the URI or try to determine meaning from
>> fragments it didn't assemble itself, so it has no more impact on
>> opacity than ?graph=.
>
> Ah, you're right. I can accept that.
>
> But still, it is easier to use it if you get a parameter in most  
> frameworks,
> which takes care of the parsing.

I think not for PUT.

Andy's concern was correct, not many frameworks that I can see support  
CGI arguments with PUT, so the straight URI form is actually easier to  
handle, and more conventional.

That said, I would be content with a ?graph= type approach, even if  
it's a bit unusual.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
9AD
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 13:37:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:39 GMT