- From: Lars G. Svensson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 07:31:49 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@rob-metalinkage [scripsit via email](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2018Jul/0173.html): 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 -- GitHub Notification of comment by larsgsvensson Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/239#issuecomment-405487729 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2018 07:31:52 UTC