Re: LRDD Update (Resource Descriptor Discovery) and Proposed Changes

Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Xiaoshu Wang [mailto:wangxiao@musc.edu]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 4:17 PM
>>     
>
>   
>> Now, given one information, you are proposing three mechanisms to
>> specify it.  Isn't it obvious that something is *fundamentally* wrong
>> about the proposal?
>>     
>
> No. That's like saying an HTML document should never repeat any of the links provided in the HTTP header, etc. 
Of course, it shouldn't.  In fact, no HTTP header should use URI except 
the Content-type, which unfortunately is not defined in this way.

> The reality is that there isn't any single solution that satisfies all the use cases we have. After over a year of debating it, this combination of three methods is the best we have come up with, and it works fine. Is it a beautiful solution with clean architecture? No. But it is the only solution we can deploy today and expect people to use.
>   
Define your "fineness"?  Making something works does not mean solving 
the desired problem.  If you know the solution is not clean, you should 
not that it should not be proposed at this level because it will have 
long term effects.
> If you read the proposal, it clearly goes through the list of available methods and states why this approach was chosen.
>   
Nope.  Your evaluation on content negotiation is very vague and, in my 
opinion, partial.

Xiaoshu
> EHL
>

Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 23:36:54 UTC