W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > July 2018

Re: [dxwg] Use case: web browser navigation of profile information

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:38:19 +1000
Message-ID: <CACfF9LxXOa6341dtzQcQ1EnMjv2hUange5dRcOtm7EQOuEe+FA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Lars G. Svensson via GitHub" <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Cc: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
I think we have existing profiles where the description is a PDF or
something - most OGC specifications are like this.  SHOULD I agree - (and i
intend to use profileDesc to create at least a minimal landing page with
links to these docs for all such profiles).

Likewise IMHO profiles SHOULD have links to appropriate machine readable
constraint specification - and SHOULD declare relationships to other
profiles and links to such documents using a canonical description language
(candidate is profileDesc).  I dont think we can say MUST for any of these,
but profile guidance can recommend them all strongly with SHOULD.

more contentious is whether, in the presence of multiple possible profiles
to represent data we state whether header based Conneg is a MAY or SHOULD,
and likewise for an alternates view - is that a SHOULD?  (Ipersonally
inclined to a SHOULD if conneg is supported)

anyway - lets get the Profile Guidance group into action and start
discussing these things - we have requirements gradually being voted on in
plenary we can start with, and we do not seem to be significantly changing
the existing straw man set of requirements (only improving mutual
understanding and wording) - so we should be able to start to flesh out a
core scope for profile guidance.

Rob



On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 00:08 Lars G. Svensson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
wrote:

> @aisaac scripsit:
> > @larsgsvensson @RubenVerborgh @rob-metalinkage I have an action to call
> for your feedback about this case, now that it's been edited by Nick :-)
>
> I find this UC highly relevant and we really should derive requirements
> from it. As Antoine says, it might be that we don't approve all
> requirements but then at least we'll know why...
>
> @agreiner scripsit:
> >  I worry that use of conneg will incentivize publishing without
> providing human navigable profile info.
>
> Yes, might be. And there seems to be rough consensus that the Profile
> Guidance Document tell implementers that they SHOULD offer human-readable
> documentation on what profiles are available (possibly being different ones
> for different media types) and MAY tell the user how to get data adhering
> to those profiles without using conneg. Do I see that right?
>
> An aside to MUST vs SHOULD: AFAIK, when making a SHOULD requirement it's
> good practice to give examples of circumstances when it's not necessary to
> implement the requirement (thus not making it a MUST). What could be
> considered so special circumstances that we don't mandate the existence of
> an HTML page?
>
> --
> GitHub Notification of comment by larsgsvensson
> Please view or discuss this issue at
> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/239#issuecomment-405259759 using your
> GitHub account
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2018 03:39:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:44 UTC