- From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@asemantics.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:25:02 +0100
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, David Powell <djpowell@djpowell.net>
On Mar 10, 2004, at 11:03 AM, Patrick Stickler wrote: >>> No, I meant MGET here. I was proposing that you could continue to get >> >> Ok - so you still need some code in the agents. > > No more so than for GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, etc. etc. sure - you need to add one. > URIQA does not increase implementational burden on the client side. Beyond some extra code to do just that; MGET. >> If you assume that - and given the above 1:1; would it not be simpler >> to simply >> postulate an extra header: >> >> Characteristics-Location: http://www.example.com/ex.rdf >> >> in the reply of any GET ? In particular that of the GET of >> http://www.example.com/ex. >> And making sure you -also- get it when a cheaper HEAD is done ? Or >> does that >> not accomplish all you want ? > > No. It doesn't (for me). Please see the URIQA FAQ about the > shortcomings > of the header approach... > Yes for you - but we're discussing this (I hope!) in a wider scope. Dw
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 16:25:05 UTC