- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 22:41:49 +0100
- To: <public-linked-data-fragments@w3.org>
On 3 Nov 2015 at 09:38, Ruben Verborgh wrote: >> The client should have some safety measures to catch a case like this I >> guess. > > The point is that this is not possible: > there might just be a page which still has a triple, > so the client is forced to keep on following "next" links. Theoretically that's true. In practice there's probably little hope to find data after the 10th empty page. On 3 Nov 2015 at 12:00, Ruben Verborgh wrote: > Hi Markus, > >> Why not simply "the next link SHOULD NOT point to an empty fragment"? > > Done: > https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/commit/21a41c2eb51f84fb70956e06 > f9f6cc5284 ef28ae#diff-6729052fc293975f6f653a85f03d88b3R542 > >>> Can I already use hydra:view? >> >> Yes. > > Done: > https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/commit/c6a27b39f3900879115c4c72 > 581884a9d 7394831 > >>>> Btw. have you considered that "fragment IRI" could be misinterpreted as "IRI > fragment"? >>> >>> Not yet; we should probably talk about "IRI of the fragment". >> >> Sounds clearer to me. > > Done: > https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/commit/29d419277f9433a3687ae42c > bb66f1146 dd83324 Fantastic! > Next steps on my list: > - go through the entire specification to simplify where possible > (I still quite can't believe that something as simple as TPF requires this much text) :-) > - write a test suite that verifies whether a given server implementation complies with the > spec > (already started; harder than I thought because of the allowed flexibility) Cool. What kind of flexibility are you referring to here? Do you think it's required flexibility or could it be reduced without loosing much? -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2015 21:42:18 UTC