W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > April 2006

HTTP in RDF

From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 00:13:30 +0100
To: "public-wai-ert@w3.org" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200604050013.32465.nick@webthing.com>

First, thanks to Johannes and Carlos for doing the hard work!

Some comments on the current note:


2.1 The Request class

I don't like enumerating request methods.  Make the method a property?

2.1.1 The Request properties

* Missing Query String
* absPath is IMHO misleading terminology.  Just Path?

2.3 The header property
(and later discussion of extensions)

What do we gain by enumerating headers?

RFC2616 has to enumerate them because it specifies them.
But it's extensible, as noted later.  Instead of enumerating
extensions (which falls down on future or private extensions,
both of which are permitted by HTTP), we should adopt the
same extensibility as HTTP.

There are other issues, including headers concerned with
transmission only (not with a document), and those which
it might be a security issue to store.  That's no reason to
exclude them, but it needs some explanation.  I guess I
could volunteer to write something there.

2.4 The body property

Binary bodies may need to be suitably encoded!
Even text bodies may contain "]]>", particularly
when the text is itself markup!

3.1 The additionalHeader property

This one makes sense, as does the example that follows.


-- 
Nick Kew
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2006 23:13:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:26 GMT