- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 10:25:12 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Sorry for the delay - I had temporarily lost access to my Gmail account. On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote: > > > On 21/10/12 22:19, Mark Baker wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> >> wrote: > > >>> Can BPR clients talk to generic RFC2616 servers? No. Should they? No. >> >> >> Whoa, that was unexpected. Before I pick apart why that's an awful >> idea, I'd like to ask whether others agree or disagree. > > > LDP should be defined by the specific data exchanged, not by specialization > of HTTP. > > And in the case of LDP-R/BPR, there isn't much "specific data": it's RDF, > "The subject is typically the BPR itself", there must be an rdf:type, etags > required. > > Looks to me like BPR clients can talk to lots of things. Well said, Andy. > > Containers are a whole different ball game. Agreed. When HTTP bundles two separate but important semantics into one - "append" and "process" into "POST" - it creates problems when reasoning about interactions with containers. Mark.
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 14:25:40 UTC