Re: Editors draft now has inlining - issue-58

Thanks John.

For what it's worth I want to say that I'm still not comfortable with this 
and would much prefer we remove it from the spec until we have had a 
chance to explore this more thoroughly.

When I recently looked at GSP again it occurred to me that beyond the 
difference on POST the one big difference I see between GSP and LDP is 
that GSP is much more precise on what triples one GETs when dereferencing 
a (graph) URI. The notion of resource boundary in LDP is basically 
implementation dependent and this inlining stuff makes it even more so.

I also don't think we gave Miguel's idea of using a multi-part response a 
fair hearing.

Note that I still support the WG's decision to go to Last Call with those 
features marked as "At Risk". I just want to share my latest thoughts on 
this.

--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS wrote on 07/10/2013 03:00:35 PM:

> From: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> Date: 07/10/2013 03:04 PM
> Subject: Editors draft now has inlining - issue-58
> 
> Ashok + Henry you seemed to be the most vocal about this at the F2F 
> so please have a look ASAP. 
> Cygri, if you're listening, this is one you originated. 
> TallTed, should be within the constraints you articulated in Boston. 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldp.html 
> 
> Primary changes: 
> + 2 definitions (last 2 in Terminology) ... each links to a new section 
> + 1 for general resource inlining, 4.10 
> +1 for "all members on page" inlining, 5.10 
> Henry, the "Danger, Will Robinson!" section is 4.10.2 
> Best Regards, John
> 
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages 
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario