Re: Summary of comments on HTTP-in-RDF

Shadi Abou-Zahra schrieb:
> 
> 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?

Hmm, in HTTP 1.1, section 13.2.3 
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec13.html#sec13.2.3> there 
are several time values.

>>> 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?

I'm not sure, but I think this depends on the header. Some may be 
case-sensitive while others are not.

>>> 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...

Although both header names _are_ equivalent in HTTP terms, there may be 
a usecase :-)

-- 
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 Monday, 19 March 2007 22:53:48 UTC