- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 21:42:05 -0400
- To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
On 24 Jul 2014 at 03:42, Ruben Verborgh wrote: > 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 evenbettert >> hanHTTP: 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 Hmmm..... > - 404 if the selector is invalid (i.e. literal as subject) Shouldn't that actually be a 400 Bad Request? > 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. What was (s)he missing? What was unclear? > However, non-experts perhaps expect to see much more HTTP stuff, > such as for example in the SPARQL protocol spec. That might be true but it doesn't have to be normative. Adding examples helps a lot in these cases. > 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?) I'm not a big fan of splitting things in too many documents. Don't be afraid to include lots of examples in the spec as necessary. Often, they are actually the most valuable part of a spec (despite being non-normative). -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2014 01:42:37 UTC