- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:46:28 -0400
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Gregory Williams<greg@evilfunhouse.com> wrote: > On Aug 11, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Kendall Clark wrote: > >> 2. GET /service-uri for protocol, which is a variant of Lee's Option >> 1, but w/out the link header. As I recall, GET /service-uri is >> available and the STTCPW. > > > I'm not sure I fully understand this. Is this the same as option 7 (conneg)? No. > Without conneg, would this prevent providing a query form at the service > uri? Yes. I didn't realize people were doing that: *ick*; The problem with the proposed use of conneg is that, as spec'd, conneg is not a way to get a representation of a different resource (query form versus svc desc), it's a way to get a diff representation of the *same* resource... so an HTML form or an RDF form... Or an HTML version of the svc desc or an RDF version. But using conneg to return an HTML form or a svc desc is an abuse of conneg. (I haven't read all the intervening conversation since Lee's proposal, so someone probably makes this point about conneg already.) I didn't tweak to people returning HTML query forms in response to a GET on the service endpoing. Thus, my variant is stillborn or we just tell people to stop doing that. :> Thanks. Cheers, Kendall
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 14:47:30 UTC