Sarven Capadisli
Sarven Capadisli
I probably should've held off responding at 0230. I'll give it at another shot. What I had in mind is a take on some of the considerations in https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/119 in...
There's a lot out there. Consistency is good but we can mix and match to use what's applicable to each spec. Here is a quick dump from my bookmarks: *...
Remind me, what's the implementation based on? Anything to do with https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7807 or some other standard or existing convention?
https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/112 generalises this issue with server errors: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/111 . We agree on detailed errors in RDF in either response body or link relation (constrainedBy). For interop, we need to have...
Since the ldp:constrainedBy relation is for client errors, then only the response body in RDF can be used for both client and server errors.
Retracted the need for servers sharing additional error details: https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/111#issuecomment-647486154 . Edit: Issue #44 covers link relation and resource describing the constraints. The Security and Privacy Considerations section of the...
Detailed messages for client errors and a resource describing the constraints are independently useful. They can be used together. For example, it is possible use a URI that is part...
If I understand you correctly, that might be addressing a related but different issue ie. publishing under solidproject.org/TR/ . See https://github.com/solid/specification/pull/216 . But, please do correct me if I've misunderstood...
If you mean `link rel=canonical`, sure, good to have FWIW.
As I understand the jekyll redirect module, that's not an HTTP level redirect. It is same as the HTML solution mentioned above. The original response is a 200. Some agents...