W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > November 2012

Re: LDP Interoperability

From: Andrei Sambra <andrei.sambra@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 23:39:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFG79eiAKG-vzSH=yd7w3-KmFZbXu1hsjv8WDcQXnixej6L4Rw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
Hello all,

In the light of tomorrow's WebID teleconf, I would like to point to the
following wiki page containing a list of requirements for WebID [1]. Please
take your time and read through it before the teleconf starts. The purpose
of this document is to establish what the purpose of WebID is.

Thank you!
Andrei

[1]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_Definition/Requirements


On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>wrote:

> On 11/22/2012 01:19 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
>> Alexandre, All,
>>
>> I've seen you mention LDP interoperability many times, I agree it's very
>> important.
>>
>> A) Every LDPR is compatible WebID 1.0.
>> B) Every WebID 1.0 Resource is compatible with LDP.
>>
>> You want (A), but you are asserting (B) in order to argue for a
>> #fragment constraint.
>>
>
> Not exactly.
>
> 1. The LDPR would concern only the WebID Profile. With hash URIs for
> WebIDs, the distinction (aka. avoiding http-range-14 for WebID) would
> be made by design.
>
> 2. The relationship with LDP is basically: don't paint yourself in the
> corner by making a choice that would introduce some incompatibility
> with LDP. That's because 303s and HTTP POST/PUT/DELETE don't play nice
> together.
>
> Alexandre.
>
>
>
>> WebID interoperability entails that we ensure (A) is true.
>>
>> (B) is an LDP interoperability issue, and should be addressed in the LDP
>> WG.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Nathan
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 23 November 2012 04:40:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:46 UTC