[foaf-protocols] First WebID Teleconference minutes (July 27th 2010)

Reto Bachmann-Gmür me at farewellutopia.com
Fri Aug 6 15:15:36 CEST 2010


----- Original message -----
> There is another reason why we should be a more heavey handed with
> specifying formats ... and that is *reliability*.   If we leave the
> formats so open and up to developers to coose, then we are going to get
> everything all over the board ... pretty much what is happening right
> now.     So the chances any one person has of seeing it work will be
> decreased.   When it doesn't work for people, they will just go do
> something else.
+1
(but I think all current spec draft are at least very close to this requirement)

> 
> Seth Russell
> Podcasting: tagtalking.net
> Facebook ing: facebook.com/russell.seth
> Twitter ing: twitter.com/SethRussell
> Blogging: fastblogit.com/seth/
> Catalog selling: www.speaktomecatalog.com
> Google profile: google.com/profiles/russell.seth
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Bruno Harbulot <
> Bruno.Harbulot at manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On 06/08/10 03:41, Manu Sporny wrote:
> > > On 08/02/2010 12:23 PM, Nathan wrote:
> > > > yes, we could easily accomplish everything needed with *only* RDFa.
> > > > 
> > > > I for one would be happy to go balls out and specify 'MUST use
> > > > RDFa' only, would anybody here who has a WebID or a foaf profile
> > > > have any good reason not to do this?
> > > 
> > > +1
> > 
> > -1, as we should leave the option to using content-negotiation for
> > returning RDF (*instead* of HTML) rather than RDF within HTML.
> > 
> > As I was saying in:
> > <
> > http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/2010-August/003075.html
> > > 
> > 
> > > Mandating or recommending content-type negotiation could make things
> > > more difficult for the publisher side.
> > > Mandating the HTML returned to have some RDFa is also a bad thing, I
> > > think. The verification agent could very well request
> > > application/rdf+xml first and then text/html in order or preference.
> > > Then, a server supporting content-type negotiation could return
> > > RDF/XML for that and some plain HTML to a browser.
> > 
> > RDFa can be a bit hard to implement, depending on the template
> > mechanisms on the server side. It shouldn't be up to the spec to
> > mandate that RDF is within the HTML or alongside it (with a different
> > content-type).
> > 
> > In addition, while I support the fact there SHOULD be an HTML
> > representation, this is actually not necessary for the protocol to
> > function, whereas narrowing down the RDF formats is.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Best wishes,
> > 
> > Bruno.
> > _______________________________________________
> > foaf-protocols mailing list
> > foaf-protocols at lists.foaf-project.org
> > http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
> > 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-protocols/attachments/20100806/337d8636/attachment.htm 


More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list