- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:32:06 +0900
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-validator@w3.org
At 12:54 05/02/23, Dan Connolly wrote: > >On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 09:28 +0900, Martin Duerst wrote: >> Hello Dan, >> >> At 02:55 05/02/23, Dan Connolly wrote: >> > >> >I'm composing an RFE >> >> I have no clue what an RFE is. > >Request For Enhancement Thanks! >(it's a pretty common term, isn't it? yes, it's >in FOLDOC... >http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query=RFE >) In international communication, please avoid jargon, at least without providing a reference. Thanks! >> I think the main reason for using POST was that for any kind of >> serious RDF, the GET URI gets extremely long, to the extent of >> being unmanageable. > >I wasn't pasting the RDF into the form; I was using >the by-reference option. The URI needn't be much >longer than... > >http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/ARPServlet?q=http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ Good point. Unfortunately, it's difficult for the form to predict what variant the user will choose. We could offer two versions of the form (one with GET and URI and no permissions only, and another with POST and all the features), but I guess that would complicate maintainance. Ultimately, you have to convince EricP, not me. Regards, Martin.
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 06:35:32 UTC