- From: Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at>
- Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 19:59:37 +0200
- To: Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>, Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
- CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Platform WG" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Resolution that does not keep me satisfied, by the way. On 04/05/14 22:46, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya wrote: > Hi Roger, > > This is related to issue raised by Sergio which was discussed in the F2F, > isn't it ? For that one, the resolution was it was ok to have distinct > usages of describedBy header as long as they point to descriptions. > > [1] - http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-04-15#resolution_4 > > Best Regards, > Nandana > > > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Roger Menday > <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>wrote: > >> >> hello >> >> 4.2.1.6 says that constraints placed on clients when creating or updating >> must be advertised with the 'describedby' link header. However, section >> 4.2.4.3. describes a failed update scenario, but fails to state that the >> 'describedby' header must be used. >> >> Should it ? >> >> thanks, >> Roger >> > -- Sergio Fernández Senior Researcher Knowledge and Media Technologies Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/3 | 5020 Salzburg, Austria T: +43 662 2288 318 | M: +43 660 2747 925 sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at http://www.salzburgresearch.at
Received on Monday, 5 May 2014 18:00:14 UTC