- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:49:55 +0000
- To: public-grddl-wg@w3.org
- CC: "Carroll, Jeremy John" <jeremy.carroll@hp.com>
Test case at http://jena.sourceforge.net/test/grddl/httpHeaders.xml Implemented by Jena GRDDL Reader SVN copy (i.e. next release) Comments tomorrow. Jeremy McBride, Brian wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] > Sent: 06 February 2007 17:58 > To: Ian Davis; McBride, Brian > Cc: public-grddl-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: HTTP Header Use Case > > On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 09:45 +0000, Ian Davis wrote: >> [...] There is no >> provision in the existing schemas for extension elements and changing >> the schemas to accommodate RDF would require an extended international > >> standardisation effort, likely to take many years. > > Well, that makes the case pretty well. > > I'm interested to know if that convinces all the implementors to add it. > I contacted Dave Beckett in IRC, and he seems willing. > http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2007-02-06#T15-25-46 > Likewise Dom for the W3C XSLT-based GRDDL service. > > Chime seems concerned about WG bandwidth to "digest any complications". > I can sympathize with that; I don't see bandwidth in my own schedule for > testing an implementation work. > > Brian, I'm very interested to know the HP/Jena position on whether this > feature is worth adding. It seems entirely likely that the testing > effort will fall to you. Jeremy seems to be cranking out tests faster > than I can even look them over; if you can work with him to build some > tests for this feature and use your newly established CVS-powers to > migrate them to the WG test suite, that would probably make the sale. > > I haven't seen any technical argument that says this feature shouldn't > go in; just some hesitation about WG bandwidth, IETF liaison overhead, > etc. I can sympathize with an argument to postpone this feature on the > basis of those costs. > But I haven't seen any argument that the feature is not The Right Thing, > yet. > > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E > >
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 18:50:35 UTC