- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 11:49:46 +0000
- To: Andrei Sambra <andrei@fcns.eu>
- CC: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Andrei Sambra wrote: > On 11/03/2012 12:48 AM, Michael Hausenblas wrote: >> >> +1 to mnot's I-D and big thanks to dret for pointing it out (as I was >> not aware of this - heck, how many I-Ds does Mark issue per month ??? ;) >> >>> I think the server should honor Accept header when replying with >>> error messaging too >> >> +1 >> >> Should we maybe step back a bit and first ask ourself who the primary >> consumer of the message is? >> >> At least implicitly, Andrei seems to assume a human the primary >> consumer (?) - so, one scenario could for example be that the UA >> renders this message in some meaningful way, presents it to the human >> user and asks for confirmation or offers choices for next steps to >> overcome the current situation. In this case I'd certainly want either >> JSON or HTML and no RDF at all. The former in Ajax setups where the >> client uses the JSON to fill in UI elements, and the latter for good >> old, plain rendering. >> >> However, I'm wondering, are there maybe also cases where the primary >> consumer is not a human user? What would this change? Should we take >> this into account and would then be RDF/Turtle the 'dominant' >> representation? >> > Given the context of this WG, I think it's safe to assume the primary > consumer will almost always be an agent asking for RDF. I wonder if > we're not going to overcomplicate things by trying to support too many > formats. > > So..in the interest of keeping things simple, maybe we should just go > with RDF/Turtle for now (as a MUST), and leave other formats at the > discretion of each implementation (as a SHOULD). I'd suggest that the vocabulary/predicates used are the thing that need specified, since "MUST be RDF" doesn't really help anybody understand the messages.
Received on Saturday, 3 November 2012 11:50:22 UTC