W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Partial draft: CommentResponse:RC-4

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 21:42:48 -0400
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <73DECDD4-942A-4D2D-94EA-A1760A23B501@evilfunhouse.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>

On Sep 13, 2011, at 6:41 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> Partial draft: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:RC-4

This draft says:

Security is one reason for making this distinction. A complete and compliant implementation of SPARQL Query offered at an endpoint will reject updates (whether this escape change is made or not) because they do not parse as queries.

I'm concerned about this text and the implication that a "complete and compliant" implementation couldn't accept (as an extension of the spec) an update request through the same mechanism as a query request (through an API or the protocol). Is preventing such an extension the intention of the spec?

Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 01:43:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:04 UTC