- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:39:15 +0100
- To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <82221018-2A5A-45DD-B09A-885680FC0777@bblfish.net>
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/
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Monday, 14 January 2013 17:39:50 UTC