hello carsten.
On 2017-04-24 14:55, Carsten Bormann wrote:
it would be better to make sure that serializations of web links actually can represent web links and not just some of the information that they convey. that train may have left the station with RFC 6690, but maybe for the JSON and CBOR serializations that can be changed.
Right. Can you be more specific what you would want to see here?
two possibilities:
- to do things well it would be better to have web link serializations
that cover *all* of RFC 5988 (bis). that's a hard thing to do and will
take a while.
- for the RFC 6690-based variants under consideration right now, it
would be helpful to very explicitly point out that they are *not*
general-purpose serializations of web links, but instead inherit the
limitations of the underlying spec.
cheers,
dret.
--
erik wilde | mailto:erik.wilde@xxxxxxxx |
| http://dret.net/netdret |
| http://twitter.com/dret |