W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > September 2019

Re: [dxwg] Antoine's conneg doc edits (#575)

From: aisaac via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:32:16 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-532389793-1568752335-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
issue 4 - ok!

issue 11 - I'm still only mildly convinced. I see that the text is now "It is possible to specify a range of acceptable profile URIs and also to indicate preferences by using quality indicators (q-values) as an ordering mechanism.". This does not rule out that q values may have ties. Or are you actually trying to rule it out, by this text? If yes it would be better to be much more explicit about it. But I reckon would be rather an editorial issue, now.

Issue 15 -Linked Data (http-range-14) style negotiation is mostly based on 303 redirects and neither example 8 nor example 9 have a 303 redirect. So how can you claim these two examples work for Linked Data?
On the other hand now I see that there is a 303 example: example 6. And even a note on "Redirection to another resource" that mentions http-range-14 and 303. So I guess I'm ok, but why hasn't anyone pointed me to these parts of the text, after the spec was changed and that the original examples that I mentioned were much earlier in the doc?

Issue 18 - I am of course very fine with this approach.

So I believe in the end the issue can be closed, but I'd welcome a couple of confirmations on whether my readings wrt 11 and 15 above are correct!

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/575#issuecomment-532389793 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2019 20:32:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:57 UTC