Re: Comments on LDP-Paging - 5.1.5 whole != sum(parts)

> <#ldpp-client-paging-incomplete>
> I find this normative statement hard to understand, at all:
> [[5.1.5 LDP Paging clients SHOULD NOT present paged resources as 
> coherent or complete, or make assumptions to that effect.]]
> I'm having a hard time with the words "present", "coherent" and 
> "complete" in this clause.
> 
> I would think a clause such as this might make more sense:
> [[5.1.5 LDP Paging clients SHOULD NOT present a union of all in-
> sequence page resource representations as equivalent to the 
> representation for the paged resource.]]

The proposed(?) update doesn't work for all LDPRs, does it?  It could be a 
useful example for LDP-RSs in particular, modulo using the more specific 
"graph union".
I suspect the words that do so offend are carryovers from 5005, I'd have 
to check that.  "present" might be WebArch.
"equivalent" ... 3986 chapter 5 -veined issues.

At a higher level though, this was probably last visited before we had 
canonical etags, so apropos some of your other "this sounds scarier than 
it needs to" comments perhaps we could be more accurate. 


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Jul/0059.html

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Cloud and Smarter Infrastructure OSLC Lead