- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:56:55 +0100
- To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
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. Containers are a whole different ball game. Andy >> If a client is designed for BPR servers, it can only be expected to work with BPR servers. >> Unless it's also a generic HTTP client. But then, it will apply the regular HTTP rules >> for non-BPR resources (otherwise, it’s not a generic HTTP client). > > Oh my ... :( > > Mark. >
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 08:57:24 UTC