- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:14:34 -0500
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, "ext Dirk-Willem van Gulik" <dirkx@asemantics.com>, David Powell <djpowell@djpowell.net>
> >>> I think the extra round-trip is worth the cost,
> >>
> >> You'll have to back that up with some motivating arguments.
> >
> > It's a question of comparison of costs. Which makes me realize
> > there's something I don't understand about MGET: how is my software
> > supposed to know whether to use MGET? Is it supposed to try MGET
> > first, see the "501 Method Not Implemented", and then fall back to
> > GET? So there's an extra round-trip for everything *not* served by
> > MGET?
>
> You're application would simply not presume that GET is going to
> provide a description (as opposed to a representation).
>
> I'm not a proponent of multiple approaches.
>
> I see no logic in first try this, then this, then that other thing,
> then this other possibility...
>
> The whole *point* of standards is so that we can avoid such nonsense.
>
> One standardized methodology for accessing resource descriptions
> (however inefficient) is better than a half dozen alternatives
> that every client has to implement and juggle between.
What would the standard say? I have a URI, and I want to know more.
Should I do an MGET or a GET?
-- sandro
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 10:14:02 UTC