- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:43:01 +0200
- To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
* Kendall Clark wrote:
>That text appears in an informative section of the document only (all
>the examples are marked as informative), so
>there is no implication whatever that posting SPARQL syntax docs is
>"a bad thing".
>
>There are several features or aspects of several examples that are
>not necessarily specified but are given so as to
>make the examples more realistic, or more reflective of best
>practice, etc. None of those are discussed explicitly
>because they are not germane to the specification normative sections.
I don't understand your response. I did not cite any specific text or
example of the specification; I am asking why using
POST /sparql/ HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example
User-agent: my-sparql-client/0.1
Content-type: application/xml
...
is good, and using
POST /sparql/ HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example
User-agent: my-sparql-client/0.1
Content-type: application/sparql-query
...
is not so good. I said that this seems to be a bad thing because the
interface does not allow it and because "The queryHttpGet binding should
be used except in cases where the URL-encoded query exceeds practical
limits, in which case the queryHttpPost binding should be used." To be
yet more precise, why
<operation ref="tns:query" wsdlx:safe="true" whttp:method="POST"
whttp:inputSerialization="application/x-www-form-urlencoded,
application/xml" ...
and not
<operation ref="tns:query" wsdlx:safe="true" whttp:method="POST"
whttp:inputSerialization="application/x-www-form-urlencoded,
application/sparql-query,
application/xml" ...
?
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 18:50:02 UTC