Re: Proposals for PUT ignoring triples ACTION-93

As noted during last week's call [1], this proposal appears to assume that 
both vanilla and chocolate servers behave the same.
4.5.1.1 as  MAY seems to violate the "no silent failures" principle.
>   Warning: LDP server ignored some server-managed properties
Seems to me that our example should be aspirational: *list* which property 
names were ignored.

The proposal draws a distinction between server-managed and unknown; today 
the client's only way to distinguish them is to observe different behavior 
in response to requests... i.e. to probe the server.  That feels vaguely 
wrong.

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario