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: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:22:48 +0100
Message-ID: <45FF2958.5000205@w3.org>
To: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org


Johannes Koch wrote:
> 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.

This is "meta information", like the TCP stuff in the connection class. 
It's not information that has been exchanged by the client and server.

>>>> 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.

So here is a proposal for the convention:
  - "The literal value of the properties will be the string string sent 
by the client or the server. In other words, capitalization and white 
space will be retained as-is."

Any thoughts?

>>>> 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 :-)

1 down, 2 more to go... ;)


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 Tuesday, 20 March 2007 00:22:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:55 UTC