- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:54:10 -0400
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Sep 19, 2006, at 2:43 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Kendall Clark wrote: >> That text appears in an informative section of the document only (all >> the examples are marked as informative), so >> there is no implication whatever that posting SPARQL syntax docs is >> "a bad thing". >> >> There are several features or aspects of several examples that are >> not necessarily specified but are given so as to >> make the examples more realistic, or more reflective of best >> practice, etc. None of those are discussed explicitly >> because they are not germane to the specification normative sections. > > I don't understand your response. I did not cite any specific text or > example of the specification; I am asking why using Well, I didn't really understand your initial comment, so mine at least got you to elaborate... > yet more precise, why > > <operation ref="tns:query" wsdlx:safe="true" whttp:method="POST" > whttp:inputSerialization="application/x-www-form-urlencoded, > application/xml" ... > > and not > > <operation ref="tns:query" wsdlx:safe="true" whttp:method="POST" > whttp:inputSerialization="application/x-www-form-urlencoded, > application/sparql-query, > application/xml" ... That's a good question; it may just be an oversight. I will have to look at some history or ask the WG what it thinks. My suspicion is that we only *need* the application/x-www-form- urlencoded input serialization type and, rather than adding application/sparql-query, we may drop the application/xml bit. But I'll send a better answer when I have one. Cheers, Kendall
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 18:53:18 UTC