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

Re: [dxwg] Query string implementation of profile selection (#544)

From: Lars G. Svensson <lars.svensson@web.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 20:35:44 +0200
To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>, public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <419eb52e-1986-d982-934f-309b3c687c35@web.de>
I'm surfacing it as an attempt to resolve #544. What I quoted was part
of your last substantial comment, and I thought that would reflect your
current position. If it doesn't, I apologise for any misinterpretation.

Best,

Lars

Am 25.09.2019 um 19:29 schrieb Annette Greiner:
> I'm not sure why you're surfacing this old email. Initially I had
> interpreted the requirement for a fallback in our charter as using
> content negotiation to retrieve fallback representations of resources
> based on profiles. I understand that the charter was in fact calling
> for alternative mechanisms to do the negotiation.
> -Annette
>
> On 9/24/19 9:48 PM, Lars G. Svensson via GitHub wrote:
>> @agreiner
>> [scripsit](https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/544#issuecomment-474535369)
>>
>>> Our charter calls for development of content negotiation by profile.
>>> Nothing in that document suggests a requirement to offer a
>>> query-string-based specification for handling profiles. I see no
>>> reason to think that such a thing would even be implied by the
>>> charter, as there exists no prior standard for handling content
>>> negotiation with query strings. If such a thing is needed at all, it
>>> would make the most sense to develop it in the context of existing
>>> use cases of content negotiation, such as language and media type.
>>> Offering normative specifications for a query-string-based
>>> negotiation method is overreaching our charter.
>>
>> The conneg deliverable is [defined
>> as](https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/charter#normative) "An explanation
>> of how to implement the expected RFC and suitable fallback mechanisms
>> as discussed at the SDSVoc workshop." QSA is proposed as a fallback
>> mechanism, so I'd say it's definitely covered by the charter. That
>> the implementation description is normative doesn't say that you have
>> to implement it, only that _if_ you implement it, that is the
>> interoperable way of doing it.
>>
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2019 18:36:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:58 UTC