Hi all, On Jan 21, 2013, at 09:58, "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote: > On 2013-01-21 15:42 , "John Arwe" <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote: >>> that seems like something that's completely out of scope of the LDP >>> protocol. yes, there may be constraints on payload, but defining and >>> enforcing those should now be something LDP is concerned with. >> typo? was now or not the intent? >> It's a "somewhat plausible" read either way, although my instinct is that >> 'not' was the intent [LDP is/should not be concerned with validation]Best >> Regards, John > > indeed, a very bad typo. > > "there may be constraints on payload, but defining and enforcing those > should not be something LDP is concerned with." Agreed. I would be very opposed to enforced restrictions in the LDP spec, although they might be locally allowed for particular applications that run *on top of* LDP services. I agree with Andy that general RDF should be able to added to LDP servers. Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood > > thanks for catching this! cheers, > > dret. > >
Received on Monday, 21 January 2013 15:27:44 UTC