On 4 Jun 2009, at 12:50, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: > On Thursday 04 June 2009 12:57:20 Steve Harris wrote: >> Nothing in http://triplr.org/turtle/www.kanzaki.com/works/ expects >> the >> *client* to break apart the URI or try to determine meaning from >> fragments it didn't assemble itself, so it has no more impact on >> opacity than ?graph=. > > Ah, you're right. I can accept that. > > But still, it is easier to use it if you get a parameter in most > frameworks, > which takes care of the parsing. I think not for PUT. Andy's concern was correct, not many frameworks that I can see support CGI arguments with PUT, so the straight URI form is actually easier to handle, and more conventional. That said, I would be content with a ?graph= type approach, even if it's a bit unusual. - Steve -- Steve Harris Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK +44(0)20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9ADReceived on Thursday, 4 June 2009 13:37:23 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:55 UTC