Re: Editors draft now has inlining - issue-58

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Thanks John.
>
> For what it's worth I want to say that I'm still not comfortable with this
> and would much prefer we remove it from the spec until we have had a chance
> to explore this more thoroughly.
>
> When I recently looked at GSP again it occurred to me that beyond the
> difference on POST the one big difference I see between GSP and LDP is that
> GSP is much more precise on what triples one GETs when dereferencing a
> (graph) URI. The notion of resource boundary in LDP is basically
> implementation dependent and this inlining stuff makes it even more so.
>
> I also don't think we gave Miguel's idea of using a multi-part response a
> fair hearing.
>

I realized later that I may have misunderstood Miguel's suggestion, I
thought he was referring to 206-Partial-Content/ContentRange [1] method but
believe he was really suggesting to use media type multi-part (mixed) [2].
 I asked around if anyone has explored this approach and they haven't,
saying they may try it out and provide feedback.  I does provide a good way
to "inline" by providing in a single response the representation of the
container, its members and along with separate headers.  I'd be interested
to hear if anyone has experience with this approach.

[1] - http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.7
[2] - http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1341/7_2_Multipart.html

 - Steve Speicher


> Note that I still support the WG's decision to go to Last Call with those
> features marked as "At Risk". I just want to share my latest thoughts on
> this.
>
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
>
>
> John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS wrote on 07/10/2013 03:00:35 PM:
>
> > From: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS
> > To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org,
> > Date: 07/10/2013 03:04 PM
> > Subject: Editors draft now has inlining - issue-58
> >
> > Ashok + Henry you seemed to be the most vocal about this at the F2F
> > so please have a look ASAP.
> > Cygri, if you're listening, this is one you originated.
> > TallTed, should be within the constraints you articulated in Boston.
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldp.html
> >
> > Primary changes:
> > + 2 definitions (last 2 in Terminology) ... each links to a new section
> > + 1 for general resource inlining, 4.10
> > +1 for "all members on page" inlining, 5.10
> > Henry, the "Danger, Will Robinson!" section is 4.10.2
> > Best Regards, John
> >
> > Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
> > Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
>