- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:15:57 +0000
- To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Cc: Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 26 Mar 2013, at 19:56, "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote: >> OTOH, paging and sorting could be treated independently, so >> that servers would have the option if expressing order even for unpaged >> containers. I think that would be good, as an option. > > we should definitely treat paging and sorting at independent features, but > they should be exposed in a unified way, if these are capabilities that > clients can choose to use or not (give me sorted/unsorted, or even sorted > by a specific key; give me paged/unpaged, or even paged by a certain page > size). I take it you mean that servers need a way to expose/announce their capabilities, so that clients may then choose from these capabilities. I agree we need to do this, but I think it's important that server implementers have the choice of not implementing these “advanced” capabilities (ordering, paging, client-selected page size). For example, if there's no hypermedia affordance for selecting the page size on a container representation, then a client knows that it just has to live with whatever page size the server offers, even if this means poorer client performance. Best, Richard > > cheers, > > dret. > >
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 20:16:10 UTC