W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > March 2007

Re: Comments on WD-HTTP-in-RDF-20070301

From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:35:38 +0100
Message-ID: <45FAB94A.2030302@fit.fraunhofer.de>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Some short comments to some of Jo's issues.

Jo Rabin schrieb:
> 2. It would be useful to timestamp requests and responses.

Not sure, response may have a date header. But in general HTTP itself 
does not keep track of dates.

> 3. I understand that there is an extension mechanism in HTTP for the request
> method. It this modelled in this specification?

Extend the Request class.

> 4. It's potentially useful to record both the absolute URI used in a request
> and the relative URI that was used to form it - e.g. when checking links
> from an HTML document.

This is a HTML / URL resolving issue, not an HTTP issue. It's not 
restricted to http URLs.

> 5. I'm not clear as to what normalisation is pre-supposed on the contents of
> the various header field values. For our purposes it would be useful to have
> those values in a normal form, where possible. Equally it would be useful,
> for audit purposes, to have a literal representation of the unprocessed
> headers.

Competing requirements: good searchability (named properties) vs. 
original order.

Possible solution:
Preserve order (rdf:Bag) with
http:MessageHeader
   |- http:fieldName rdf:resource="&http;content-type"
   |  (poining to a specified _value_ instead of named property)
   |- http:fieldValue

> 6. It would be useful for those header field values that have structure to
> be represented so that their components are exposed in a way that allows
> easy access via XPATH expressions.

Generally: it's HTTP-in-RDF, not HTTP-in-XML.

Additionally: the range for the headers is not specified, so a more 
complex model is possible.

> 7. It's a little inconvenient to have two different representations for
> Headers. Is it an error to use an additionalHeader object where a specific
> object could have been used?

See approach for #5

> 11. It would be useful to record the size of the headers and the body.

Not sure what size means. This is not specified in HTTP (apart from 
content-length header for the length of the message body).

-- 
Johannes Koch
BIKA Web Compliance Center - Fraunhofer FIT
Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany
Phone: +49-2241-142628    Fax: +49-2241-142065
Received on Friday, 16 March 2007 15:37:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:28 GMT