- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:02:57 +0000
- To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Shadi Abou-Zahra schrieb: > Hi Julian, > > Julian Reschke wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm a bit confused what the extensibility model is. >> >> For instance: why does the spec include definitions for headers >> defined in RFC2518, but not for status codes (such as 207)? > > The response codes are defined by the ResponseCode class: > - <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-HTTP-in-RDF-20070323/#responseCode> > - <http://www.w3.org/2006/http#ResponseCode> > > As shown in example 2.6, it is easy to record response codes (such as > "207") that are not defined by the HTTP Vocabulary in RDF (taken from > RFC 2616). Additionally, it is also possible to extend the core schema > (using a separate namespace) by subclassing the NewResponseCode class: > - <http://www.w3.org/2006/http#NewResponseCode> > > A similar approach has been taken for the headers, one can use the set > of predefined headers, record literal values, or use subclassing. > > Hope this helps, thanks for your comments. Understood, but why are RFC2518 headers predefined, while RFC2518 status codes are not? So this is a consistency question. (Note that the is an IANA HTTP status code registry). Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 24 March 2007 16:31:02 UTC