W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-annotation@w3.org > July to December 2008

Re: Comments on the draft W3C Annotatea specification

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
Message-Id: <1226985822.2960.32.camel@g710-3318.itee.uq.edu.au>

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 November 2008 05:41:08 GMT