Re: containers examples should end in /

On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:25, "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote:

> hello all.
> 
> On 2013-01-14 14:54 , "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>> The argument is that instead of having containers
>> with URLs such as
>> http://example.org/container1
>> they should be
>> http://example.org/container1/
> 
> picking one over the other is a preference of the entity managing
> container URIs and should be of no concern for the protocol (i.e., LDP
> implementations should have the freedom to go one way or the other).

I did not argued for a MUST on containers ending in "/".
I was putting forward an argument for what types of URIs would be 
better to be used by the examples in the spec.

> if
> there is any place in the protocol where the URI of a containers matters
> in any way, we've done something wrong.

It's nice to make sweeping statements like that, but the more
sweeping the more likely a statement is to be wrong.

URIs, especially URLs are essential to HTTP, and they have a
structure defined in the RFC3986
"Relative Resolution"
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.2

Anyway, if you look at my argument carefully, you'll see I show
how both ways of writing containers can be made to work.
I am pointing out the consequences of doing it one way or 
the other, with the obvious conclusion that having containers
ending in "/" is more elegant for writing things out in the 
spec and more intuitive for people coming to RDF as newbies.



> 
> cheers,
> 
> dret.
> 

A short message from my sponsors: Vive la France!
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/