Henry Story

@CxRes wrote: > Not having containers with support for arbitrary hypermedia is a DEAL BREAKER. Without a fix, I will even be forced to reconsider using Solid. All the containers...

I have a screencast of a demo of how the `defaultAccessContainer` link works here https://twitter.com/bblfish/status/1666547828506742788

Thanks for bringing that up. I was hoping to have such a discussion on the LDP group 8 years ago. In [the §5.2.3.7 of the LDP spec](https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#ldpc-post-rdfnullrel) we find >...

> I do not know why 5.2.3.7 is specifically called for, but while it doesn't say more about other kinds of relative references, does it need to? The LDP group...

btw. you don't need to specify a sub class iContainer of `ldp:BasicContainer`. You could also specify `solid:Resource` to have the desired properties. Then it would be possible to write: ```Turtle...

Let me know if you discuss this on the spec meetup. So I can make time to attend.

For an example of the types of problems that the LDP group had to surmount with relative URLS and that are it seems still alive see [the recent discussion on...

In the discussions the following question came up, which is an interesting one asked by @csarven among others: > Should the LDP container not in fact correctly deal with documents...

@bblfish wrote 10 months ago > > But the requirement that `` refer to the container (e.g. `/foo/`) and `` to the created resource (e.g. `/foo/bar/baz/bam` would require a parser...

> all relative URIs must be resolved relative to the retrieval URI as per RFC 3986, yes, LDP changes nothing about that and could not. What LDP does not guarantee...