Comments on Annotea server and protocol
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <[email protected]> 28 Aug 2003 17:10:03 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.w3c.annotation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <1062083406.24848.138.camel@stratustier> |
Hi there, As I have started to use a private instance of annotea as a basis for an internal project, I have several questions/comments: - has it been foreseen to post more than one annotation in one POST request? From what I've seen the current W3C Annotea implementation doesn't support this, nor does the protocol [1] seems to allow it (while it doesn't explicitely say so) - from what I've seen, the W3C Team private instance of annotea doesn't reply with a 201 code as required by the protocol on the creation of a new annotation: cat annotation-test.rdf |POST -Sse -C dom:XXXXX -c application/xml -H "Content-Length:567" http://xxx.w3.org/annotations replies with: POST http://xxx.w3.org/annotations --> 401 Authorization Required POST http://xxx.w3.org/annotations --> 200 OK Further more, the response is a text/html document, note an RDF one (but maybe the private instance of annotea is outdated?). - the Annotea protocol would benefit from using RFC Keywords, I believe (the should/may words are used, but it's not clear if it is in that meaning; other assertions are made in affirmative style, and it's then unclear what level of requirement they impose). - is there any reason why this is not published as a Team submission? The annotea system really deserves as much visibility as possible, I think :) Dom 1. http://www.w3.org/2002/12/AnnoteaProtocol-20021219 -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM mailto:[email protected]
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 189 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/ThtLbE/BlgVzhzsRAg5/AKCS3UzFB5A5WF8TP8zO6GGYsNhgPQCfYoyX xzBzSRjn0aTVtne5ybfd98A= =osC/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----