- From: Erik Wilde via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 07:23:23 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
@iherman, why would a client want to "identify a server to be an annotation server"? does a browser have to "identify a server to be an (image|script|form) server" that implements a special flavor of HTTP? that would be rather bad and fragment the web. instead, you use HTTP constructs to get the job done, either what's in the vanilla spec using media types that work for you, or you mix in extra parts such as additional HTTP header fields that help to get the job done better. everything else is non-webby, and it would be sad to see a W3C spec go this way. HTTP *is* the application protocol of a web service, and trying to define "extended subsets" of it is a rather unfortunate anti-pattern. and yes, i do have a hard time seeing the sense of the whole spec as it is. document the way in which you're using the standard parts of web architecture you're using (media types, header fields, link relations, and so forth), and that's it. if you feel like you need extra parts that don't yet exist, define them in the same way as LDP defines Accept-Post (http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#header-accept-post) because the group felt the need to expose that specific information. -- GitHub Notif of comment by dret See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/51#issuecomment-119467217
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2015 07:23:25 UTC