headers
Stephen Crawley | 6 Jan 05:51
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Comments on the draft W3C Annotatea specification


And another:

26)  Section 2.4 specifies how PUT is used to update an annotation.  
The example shows the replacement annotation RDF having a subject 
URI; i.e.

<r:Description
r:about="http://annotea.example.org/Annotation/3ACF6D754">
...

The spec does not say if the subject URI is mandatory.  It also
does not state that the URI (if present) needs to match the 
URI in the request.  The same comment applies to Section 3.4.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stephen Crawley | 23 Jan 04:42
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Comments on the draft W3C Annotatea specification


And my sharp eyed colleague has just spotted another on:

27) There is a mistake in the example in section 3.1

<r:RDF xmlns:r="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
       xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/annotation-ns#"
       xmlns:d="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
       xmlns:tr="http://www.w3.org/2001/03/thread#"
       xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/1999/xx/http#"
       xmlns:rt:"http://www.w3.org/2001/12/replyType">

The last xmlns declaration is missing a '#' after 'replyType'.  Actually,
this particular xmlns declaration defines a prefix that is not used in the
example and could therefore be deleted entirely.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stephen Crawley | 29 Jan 02:44
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Comments on the draft W3C Annotatea specification


And yet another on:

28)  I think that the example request in section 4 contains a typo.
Shouldn't the second '?' character be a '&' character?

-- Steve
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Stephen Crawley | 29 Jan 05:15
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Bug in W3C Annotea service


The Annotea spec defines the query to get replies to an annotation to be
"w3c_reply_tree".  Unfortunately, the W3C Annotea server uses
"w3c_replyTree".  This is a bug, and should be corrected in an upwards
compatible fashion.

Some Annotea clients (e.g. Annozilla) have been implemented against the
W3C Annotea server's behavior rather than the spec.  Others (e.g. the
WAINU library) implement the spec.  This means that Annotea servers need
to implement both versions of the request to support the range of
clients.  This probably should be mentioned in the Annotea spec as
"implementation advice".

-- Steve
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane