On 2017-04-25 15:06, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Apr 25, 2017, at 14:50, Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Erik Wilde <erik.wilde@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
As Erik previously indicated, it would be great if this could be done as part of RFC5988bis.
Yes.
But covering all of RFC 5988 is mainly hard because of the vagaries of HTTP header field encoding.
> ...
Do you have a specific problem in mind?
Best regards, Julian