Re: Why Range doesn't work for LDP "paging" (cf 2NN Contents-of-Related)

hi all,

I will quote under the e-mail for information I know


Il Marted́ 16 Settembre 2014 3:13, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> ha scritto:



Earlier today the LDP Working Group discussed the matter of whether we 
could use range headers instead of separate page URIs.  Use of Range 
headers was suggested on this list recently.

Our conclusion was still "no", for the following reasons.  Please let us 
know if you see a good solution to any/all of them:

1.  We don't know how the server would initiate use of Range.   With our 
current separate-page design, the server can do a 303 redirect to the 
first page if it determines the representation of the entire resource is 
too big.   The question here is what to do when the client didn't 
anticipate this possibility.  True, the 303 isn't a great solution 
either, since unprepared clients might not handle it well either.  
Perhaps one should give a 4xx or 5xx when the client asks for a giant 
resource without a range header...?   But there's no "representation too 
big" code defined.

I think you can use a switch to know if server or client use Range.
You should use a switch in both of cases. 
The switch allow you to check if the condition is true or false so you can have a better view of the result and choose better solution.



[cut]2. ...[/cut]



3.  Many of our usual RDF data systems don't support retrieval of ranges 
by integer sequence numbers.   While some database systems have an 
internal integer row number in every table that could be used for Range, 
many others do not, and we don't know of a straightforward and 
appropriate way to add it.

it's better in every cases use integer only for sure mathematical calculation, in other cases I use real number, it's more sure and permit to choose a control with if to redirect correctly.


Micaela Gallerini

Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 07:18:32 UTC