- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:42:53 +0200
- To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Hi Erik and Markus, > i think we are in violent agreement here. *if* non-HTTP URIs are showing up, then maybe the client is out of luck, or maybe there's another piece of information somewhere that says how to use the controls with evenbetterthanHTTP: URIs. In theory, we could make the spec (almost) independent of a protocol. The most important HTTP-specific things are: - 404 if the fragment (page) is empty - 404 if the selector is invalid (i.e. literal as subject) However, we should also ensure that the spec is implementable. Concretely, I have received an e-mail from somebody that said there's insufficient information in the spec to implement a server, while I am sure everything is in place. However, non-experts perhaps expect to see much more HTTP stuff, such as for example in the SPARQL protocol spec. Perhaps a non-normative section about this could be really helpful to such implementers, or maybe a separate note with a more step-by-step process (but that'd another document to maintain, and how purposeful is the spec then?) Best, Ruben
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2014 07:43:22 UTC