- From: Urs Holzer <urs@andonyar.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:11:06 +0100
- To: Matthew Wilson <matthew@mjwilson.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: www-annotation@w3.org
Hi Matthew > I'm finally getting round to implementing the Reply protocols in > Annozilla, and I'm having a few problems. One is that Amaya seems to > be pretty crash-happy at the moment, but I suppose that's best for > another list. Amaya has always been like this ;-) As far as I know, there is still a problem with Annotations in Amaya. It crashes at the next http request after loading Annotations. :-( > Anyway, looking at > http://www.w3.org/2002/12/AnnoteaProtocol-20021219#ReplyProtocol I > find a few typos. > > [...] > > 3. Figure 3.3 specifies the query parameter as "w3c_reply_tree", > where "w3c_replyTree" seems to be what is implemented. Good you mention that. In my own server software I implemented w3c_reply_tree. It seems I have to accept w3c_replyTree too. > With these corrected, I'm trying to perform a simple POST, containing > more or less the same content as the sample, but I don't get the > expected response back. If I add "Accept: text/rdf" to the request, > then the response I get is a 404 error with > [...] Does application/rdf+xml or application/xml work? The latter is actually the Content-type the server uses in it's replies in the examples in the document you mentioned. If this solves the problem, the server should better answer with "not acceptable" rather than 404. Greetings Urs
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 10:11:18 UTC