Re: Protocol Affordances

I think it would definitely help.  I'm (right now) working on the protocol
doc to make the changes discussed before sending it to the TAG for
comment.  As part of that I'm commenting inline on where the requirements
come from ... and they are pretty much all LDP, HTTP or the combination of
the two.  The only things that we do are what Erik has suggested -- define
the media types and link headers that we care about on top of existing
requirements.


On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is>
wrote:

> I found this document from the LDP WG (circa 2013) to be helpful in
> understanding where LDP sits "on top of" HTTP:
> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/ISSUE-32
>
> It might be useful for us to define a similar table that outlines
> something similar. The hope is to make it clear what we're extending,
> adding to, or departing from with any spec "underneath" our protocol.
>
> Since the annotation protocol spec is on top of LDP, looking at this chart
> might be a good starting point.
>
> Would that help anyone else besides me? :)
>
> Cheers!
> Benjamin
> --
> Developer Advocate
> http://hypothes.is/
>



-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305