Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL Protocol: suboptimal examples

On Jan 29, 2006, at 11:59 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> * Kendall Clark wrote:
>> Okay, the latest editor's draft contains fixes for most of these
>> comments:
>>
>> editor's draft $Revision: 1.106 $ of $Date: 2006/01/29 16:16:47 $
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/proto-wd/
>>
>> Notably,
>>
>> Changed some mime type thingies:
>> - added charset to text/plain in 2.2.1.9
>> - added charset to text/html in 2.2.1.10
>> - added a doctype declaration in 2.2.1.10
>
> I see this in the changelog but the example doesn't seem to have a
> document type declaration still. Ah, looking at the source, it's there
> but not properly escaped, so it won't show up.

D'oh! Fixed in 1.107.

> types is acceptable, the specific type here isn't. A more appropriate
> type would be e.g. application/vnd.w3c.notation3 which could easily be
> registered. So no, this does not satisfy me.

But, really, you have to take this up with someone other than me or  
with the DAWG, I think. The Director has stated his preference for  
the N3 mime type, and I'm accommodating that request. So while I  
appreciate yr not being satisfied, there's nothing I can do to fix  
that, short of removing the example completely, which isn't going to  
happen on my say-so alone.

> Regarding
>
>   I also think using "my.example" in the Host: headers is suboptimal
>   e.g. due to <http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#Translations>. I
>   think a simple "example.org" or similar would be better here.
>
> I'm not very fond of using 'www.example' instead; while legal, common
> practise is to use example.org or www.example.org; is there a good
> reason not to use that?

I prefer "www.example", and it's legal. I consider this comment to be  
editorial and I won't be making any change with regard to it.

Cheers,
Kendall
--
You're part of the human race
All of the stars and the outer space
Part of the system again

Received on Sunday, 29 January 2006 17:05:42 UTC