- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 21:31:14 +0100
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 6 Apr 2008, at 19:41, Jonathan Rees wrote: >>> The utility of httpRange-14 is significantly reduced as long as >>> not all minters of URIs for non-IRs adhere to it. I have no idea >>> what the penetration of httpRange-14 is, but my guess is that it >>> is and will remain low. >> >> Any backup for that guess? > > Nope, sorry - that's why I called it a guess. I know of people using > URIs to name non-IRs who either disagree with httpRange-14, or do > not know about it, or cannot arrange for 303s, so there is some > noncompliance out there. Even if penetration is prettty high, a few > bad apples will spoil the bunch, in situations where it matters (not > that I know what those are, but I assume they exist). I call FUD. Who are those people you know? Anyone else except Pat Hayes and the Dublin Core folks? Care to point to a bunch of URIs that deliver RDF and clearly violate httpRange-14? I'm keeping my eyes open for those and I don't see many. You say that a few bad apples will spoil the broth. Why do you think so? The Web doesn't break just because a few people don't follow standards. > Of course it would be delightful if there were perfect compliance. It would be delightful if there was a solid consensus around httpRange-14. Perfect compliance is of course neither realistic nor required nor important. Richard
Received on Sunday, 6 April 2008 20:31:54 UTC