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

Re: Summary of comments on HTTP-in-RDF

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:18:05 +0100
Message-ID: <45FEFE0D.9000305@w3.org>
To: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Hi,

Johannes Koch wrote:
>> 2. timestamp requests and responses
>> -> need to decide whether to implement this or not. It seems pretty easy
>> and useful to add dc:date properties to the response/request classes.
> 
> Everyone who needs it can add dc:date properties to request/response. 
> There's no need for us to allow/disallow it.

We are recording an exchange, timestamping the interaction seem to be in 
the scope of this effort. Do you feel strongly about this?


>> 5. normalisation of header field values
>> -> need to define some form of convention, even if no transformation is
>> done we need to say that somewhere. What convention do we want to use?

Any thoughts on this? How do we treat whitespace and caps?


>> 5.a. literal representation of the unprocessed headers
>> -> need to decide whether to implement this or not. It seems pretty easy
>> to add an "http:transcript" property to store the original header text.
> 
> I don't think we need a literal representation of the unprocessed 
> headers, if the processed representation of the headers is equivalent to 
> the unprocessed stuff.

Equivalent is in the eye of the beholder. I *may* be interested that my 
server send "aCCept-language" instead of "Accept-language". It would be 
optional anyway...


>> 6. header field exposed in a way that allows easy access via XPATH
>> -> need to decide whether to implement this or not, it seems however out
>> of scope and not straight forward to do.
> 
> See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Mar/0071.html>
> 
>> 7. two different representations for headers
>> -> we need to consider if we want a single mechanism to provide headers
>> (see response from Johannes on issue #5 in Jo's comments).
> 
> Or see 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Mar/0071.html>

Yes, good approach. We need to refine it though.


>> 12. the order of the requests in connection class
>> -> need to decide whether (and how) to implement this. We need to
>> specify an rdf:Seq list but not sure how to do this in RDFS.
> 
> I'm not sure whether you can do this in RDFS.
> 
> Just use
> 
> <http:request>
>   <rdf:Seq>
>     <rdf:li>
>       <rdf:Request rdf:ID="req1">
>         ...
>       </rdf:Request>
>     </rdf:li>
>     <rdf:li>
>       <rdf:Request rdf:ID="req2">
>         ...
>       </rdf:Request>
>     </rdf:li>
>   </rdf:Seq>
> </http:request>
> 
> or
> 
> <http:request rdf:parseType="Collection">
>   <rdf:Request rdf:ID="req1">
>     ...
>   </rdf:Request>
>   <rdf:Request rdf:ID="req2">
>     ...
>   </rdf:Request>
> </http:request>

I prefer the latter. (We should clarify the approach in the text and 
reflect it in the example too.)


Regards,
   Shadi


-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ |
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 21:18:16 GMT

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