Proposal to close ISSUE-69, as is

As mentioned in a previous email one part of ISSUE-18 was recast as 
ISSUE-69 which focuses on the query syntax used to access the first and 
subsequent pages. It reads:

* Why do we have different query syntaxes for accessing the first and 
subsequent pages (e.g. why not p=1): <URI>?firstpage, <URI>?p=2, ... ?
* Is it best to use 'p' or something more descriptive like 'page'?

This is a misunderstanding of the spec. While the spec currently defines 
?firstPage it says nothing (normative) about what the URLs of the 
subsequent pages look like. All it says is that the predicate ldp:nextPage 
indicates the next page. The URL used with that predicate can be ANYTHING.

I also note that ISSUE-65 (FirstPage HATEOAS Compliance) proposes to get 
rid of ?firstPage which isn't RESTful.

So, given that, I propose we close ISSUE-69 as is.
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group

Received on Monday, 6 May 2013 22:53:02 UTC