- From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 21:57:18 +0100
- To: Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
I would strongly argue that conneg is not an implementation detail, but rather an orthogonal specification, and good specifications follow the orthogonality principle: https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#orthogonal-specs That allows HTTP protocols not having to define conneg in their specs. SPARQL 1.1 Protocol refers to conneg with a one-liner: https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-protocol/#conneg That does not seem to have caused problems like the ones we are discussing here? However when you try to make some of the media type special, e.g. "canonical", you break the orthogonality, and conneg gets pulled into the protocol specification. That is a clear architectural anti-pattern IMO. On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 9:48 PM Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022, 20:12 Kingsley Idehen, <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: >> >> On 1/27/22 1:18 PM, Jacopo Scazzosi wrote: >> > Hi all, >> >> >> Hi Jacopo, >> >> > >> >> Could we come to a consensus that content negotiation is optional for >> >> current and future WebID work? >> > I agree that it should remain optional, as per the current WebID spec/draft: >> > >> > a) conneg tends to be incompatible with hosting of static resources >> > b) conneg comes with its own complexity, which should not be forced upon >> > adopters of the spec >> >> >> Content Negotiation is an implementation detail that has no business >> being in the WebID spec. > > > +1
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2022 20:57:44 UTC