Re: LDP-Server - Issue-58

hello pierre-antoine.

On 2013-06-13 8:20 , "Pierre-Antoine Champin"
<> wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Arnaud Le Hors
><> wrote:
>How do you do that without talking about servers?
>I think Henry's point is that LDP-compliance is not a property of the
>server as a whole...
>An HTTP server manages a number of resources (roughly, one per URI for
>which the server does not return 404);
>some of those resources might conform with the spec (either as LDPR or
>LDPC), but other may not (e.g. /favicon.ico).
>The original text:
>> [[
>> A conforming LDP Server is an application program that processes HTTP
>>requests and generates HTTP responses
>> that conform to the rules defined in sections onLDPRs and LDPCs
>> ]]
>may seem to imply that an LDP server manages *only* LDPRs : one might
>read it as "that processes any HTTP request", while the intention is, I
>guess, "that processes some HTTP requests"

i think i am in agreement with henry and pierre-antoine here. it makes
little sense to talk about "LDP servers" (or any other kind of "media
type" server). in the same way you can have an "HTML validator" that you
point at a URI, we should be able to define an "LDP validator". HTML
validation can have various levels of pickiness, validating just the
structure or, if you wanted to, you might check for accessibility
constraints and so forth. you could also make sure the server isn't
horribly misconfigured and check for some basic HTTP usage you would
expect (serve an HTML media type and so forth). but in the end, your
validation can only be about "did that single interaction work the way it
is expected to work", so you're not really checking "the server". at least
that's how i usually looks at these matters.



Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 16:39:31 UTC