Re: [web-annotation] avoid constraining HTTP

@dret, I must admit I am still lost, although I try to understand what
 you say. 

I looked, taking this discussion into account, to the 
[LDP](http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/) spec with fresh eyes. I see the 
repeated pattern (as mentioned by 
[@azaroth42](https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/51#issuecomment-119320589))
 saying

> When the LDP server supports this method, this specification imposes
 new requirements for LDPCs

but, I must admit, I still miss some niceties here. I think I get that
 you do not want to impose, e.g., the existence of a specific verb 
(say, POST), so you surround it with this statement. But, 
nevertheless, the LDP specification does have a whole series of 
SHOULD-s and MUST-s in, say, [section 
4.2.4](http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#h-ldpr-http_put) which reads as a 
restriction of a LDP server for me in specifying, beyond the 
corresponding RFC-s, e.g., what the response should look like (**if** 
that specific method is available, that is). Admittingly less 
stringent than what we have in [the protocol 
draft](http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-annotation-protocol-20150702/#http-requirements),
 but restrictions nevertheless. 

I think the only way to move forward is really to see some examples 
for the kind of changes you'd like to see and see what the 
consequences would be for an annotation client. I must admit, on a 
very pragmatic level, if the development of a client would become a 
factor more complicated as a result, I would be genuinely worried.

(I will be on vacations for a while, though, so I may not be in 
position to respond to any replies... sorry about that.)


-- 
GitHub Notif of comment by iherman
See 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/51#issuecomment-120387632

Received on Friday, 10 July 2015 11:18:30 UTC