W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: RC-2 resolution

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 21:24:55 +0100
Message-ID: <506B4D97.3080509@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Note the following Internet Draft:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-problem-01

Indicating Details of Problems to Machines in HTTP
draft-nottingham-http-problem-01
   Expires: March 17, 2013

i.e. this area, in general, is emerging.

	Andy


On 02/10/12 21:21, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> I talked to Greg, and we looked more closely at Richard's latest
> suggestion. In it, he includes a "minimal option":
>
> "[T]he minimal option would be to encourage text/plain error messages by providing*only*  text/plain examples (currently there's one for text/plain and one for HTML)"
>
>
> Given the lack of experience and consensus, Greg and I feel that Richard's suggestion here is acceptable, and we plan to modify the protocol editor's draft accordingly. Please speak up if you're not happy with this resolution.
>
> Also, please take a look at this draft response which I'd propose we
> send to Richard:
>
> """
> After several more discussions, it remains clear that we still have a lack of consensus on this topic and given our group's dwindling timeline, we have no further time to devote to this issue. To that end, we've removed the examples that encouraged using the HTTP status message. We've also adopted your "minimal option", and adjusted the error examples to all use text/plain responses.
>
> Please let us know if this satisfactorily addresses your comments.
>
> thanks,
> Lee
> On behalf of the SPARQL WG
> """
>
>
> Lee
>
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 20:25:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:49 GMT