- From: Stephen Crawley <uqscrawl@uq.edu.au>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:23:42 +1000
- To: scrawley@itee.uq.edu.au
- Cc: www-annotation@w3.org
And a couple more: 21) In Section 2.1.2, the spec talks about using the HTTP Message schema to encode XML-based formats such as XHTML, MATHML and SVG as annotation bodies. However, it is not clear whether this use of the HTTP Message schema is mandatory or optional. (I assume that it is optional.) 22) Section 2.3 does not clearly state how the server should respond to a GET request for a 'body' URL. If the original embedded annotation body conforms to the HTTP Message schema, should the server respond to a GET by decoding and sending the HTTP body? What should it do if the original body is does NOT conform to the HTTP Message schema? What should it do if the original body contains other RDF properties? 23) Section 2.3. should include examples showing how the server responds to GET requests. 24) Section 2.1.2 contains the words "[t]he authors have not decided whether to move to using that mechanism.". 25) There should be a way for a client to TELL the server to respond a GET request for a 'body' URI by sending the body as RDF ... not withstanding the use of the HTTP Message schema.
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 05:41:05 UTC