HTTP might not be the only implementation of triple pattern fragment servers

[RubenVerborgh]

As raised by Kjetil Kjernsmo (@kjetilk) on the mailing list:

Since REST is expressedly not-just-HTTP (and also, just think about the possibility that some may be able to implement the spec not-just-HTTP) I think it is inappropriate to say that "Triple pattern fragments servers are HTTP servers and hence MUST comply with the HTTP specification [RFC2616]." It is in the interest of orthogonal specifications and unexpected reuse that this is specified in terms of messages, and that HTTP is mentioned as an implementation example. IMHO. :-)

[RubenVerborgh]

Markus Lanthaler (@lanthaler):

The MUST RFC2616 statement could be left out in any case. If HTTP URLs are used, a conformant server has obviously to conform to the HTTP specs. Using the same reasoning, other normative statements in section 4 should be dropped (or at least made non-normative to prevent duplication of normative statements).

[akuckartz]

+1

[RubenVerborgh]

This issue is being tackled as part of a rewrite of the LDF and TPF specs. Done:

• [x] Rewrite Linked Data Fragments spec
• [x] Rewrite Triple Pattern Fragments spec