Wouter Termont

Summarizing the gathered recommendations, specs should: 1. **guarantee interoperabiliy between all players** (i.e. mandate at least one serialization for clients/servers); 2. **remain agnostic about RDF serializations** (i.e. not mandate a...

@elf-pavlik, for myself HTML is not a major concern. I just mentioned it since multiple people seem to find it important (including either RDFa or structured data islands). As I...

> > @woutermont A Solid spec should contain a MUST mandating servers to serve (X)HTML+RDFa on requests with text/html or application/xhtml+xml as Accept header. > > This may be a...

> > @csarven Specific formats are asked for in each technical report with focus on interoperability. > > This approach is currently causing issues, as raised by @tomhgmns in #463....

Thanks for your elaboration, @jacoscaz! @ruben, could you maybe explain in more detail WHY you think it too strict to mandate servers to serve a concrete serialisation (e.g. (X)HTML+RDFa)? >...

I agree with @bblfish in as far that we should not let existing practices be the _ultimate_ guide for our decisions. However, I definitely see value in trying our best...

@namedgraph > Are you familiar with the WWW architecture principle of [orthogonal specifications](https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#orthogonal-specs)? RDF syntaxes, among other things, are clearly orthogonal to the Solid's core specification. So why are you...

@rubensworks > > @woutermont Am I missing something that makes you still prefer a MAY, with the consequences for interoperability? > > Because a MUST on HTML conflicts with the...

@jacoscaz thanks for the support But then it seems that you, as well as @rubensworks and probably @namedgraph would all prefer to mandate nothing to the server and put the...

Dropping my 2c here, as preparation for a call with @elf-pavlik; might come back on it afterward. As a general remark, I'd like to refrain from talking about AuthN/OIDC/HTTPSig as...