Tom, On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Tom Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If it is different, Jeen would probably appreciate the contribution also. > > These are two different specs (neither is a recommendation), but the > LDPatch option has at least some uptake with LDP users, due to its origins > as output of the LDP WG. > I don't want to revisit this discussion again. But there was no consensus in the TDP WG about the patch language. At that time, before LDPatch was even discussed as an option, we decided to provide RDF-Patch support in our LDP implementation. FMPOV there is to much not-invented-in-W3C in the decision of creating yet-another patch language rather than technical arguments. Being said that, both languages could be supported, that does not introduce much conflict, just more options to the user. Cheers, -- Sergio Fernández Partner Technology Manager Redlink GmbH m: +43 6602747925 e: [email protected] w: http://redlink.co
