Re: Fwd: Practical issues arising from the "null relative URIs"-hack

On 4/1/14 9:52 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On 04/01/2014 08:56 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 4/1/14 8:19 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> Also, I think the risks are quite bounded, because this design is 
>>> attached to the current three LDP containers.   That is, this 
>>> decision only applies if you're dealing with one of three particular 
>>> classes of resource (ldp:BasicContainer, ldp:DirectContainer, and 
>>> ldp:IndirectContainer).  Personally, frankly, I expect 5 years from 
>>> now all three of those containers will be considered obsolete.   
>>> We're really just starting to figure out LDP, and my sense is 
>>> several details of how those containers are defined will be 
>>> problematic, once we have some more experience.   But for now, 
>>> they're good enough to move forward a bit, and as we learn more we 
>>> can define new and better ones. 
>>
>> I struggle to understand why one would design with inevitable 
>> obsolescence in mind. Seriously now, if this was the basis of AWWW 
>> where would the Web be today?
>>
>
> Random example:    In the HTML spec, "No elements may be recursively 
> nested."   [1]
>
> Fortunately, it wasn't too hard to fix that later.
>
> Surely you're not suggesting we wait until everyone is perfectly happy 
> with every aspect of the design before we suggest people try using it.

Certainly not.

>
> When do you want LDP to ship?   By the charter we have two months 
> left.  As far as I can tell, the working group has done the best job 
> it could within the time it had.    It's not clear to me it could do 
> better with more time -- I think what's actually needed is for people 
> to try using it, and then we'll re-convene and improve what needs to 
> improved.

As you know, we (at OpenLink) use/implement first and talk later. We've 
had many iterations of this with many W3C specs. My concern is simply 
about your comment about certain obsolescence of a spec for which 
adoption is important. Of course, a spec will evolve, but I wouldn't 
equate that to guaranteed obsolescence :-)


Kingsley
>
> That's a good thing.
>
>          -- Sandro
>
>> One thing I do agree with though is simply this: any spec that boils 
>> down to poorly derived compromises of AWWW is doomed for 
>> obsolescence, and that will occur in less than 5 years.
>>
>> If a spec isn't implemented by anyone, or a tiny minority, in the 
>> context of the Web it is basically as good as obsolete, IMHO.
>>
>>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/draft-ietf-iiir-html-01.txt
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen