- From: Lars G. Svensson <lars.svensson@web.de>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 20:41:05 +0200
- To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>, public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Does this mean that you think we should declare http conneg as non-normative, too, since it's only one of several possibilities to implement the abstract model? (One could for instance register other headers to do that). To me the important part of Nick's comment is that it's not normative to have to implement a QSA API. It only says that if you implement conneg-by-ap using query strings, this is the way to do it. Why do you oppose to that? Best, Lars Am 25.09.2019 um 19:32 schrieb Annette Greiner: > I'll quote Nick's email from back in April here: > > "What is normative is that one adheres to the Abstract Model for any > Realizations. It's not normative to, for instance, have to implement a > QSA API just because you implemented an HTTP API according to the > Abstract Model." > > -Annette > > On 9/24/19 9:52 PM, Lars G. Svensson via GitHub wrote: >> A further comment from @agreiner that came over the [mailing >> list](http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Sep/0872.html) >> as a reply to [Karen's >> comment](https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/544#issuecomment-534764141): >> >>> Looking back at my big edit on that section, I did say "Unlike the >>> HTTP-header realization, which is also the subject of an independent >>> IETF document [PROF-IETF], this realization is fully specified here, >>> though it is not normative." >> I thought we had agreed that the QSA realization was not to be >> normative. There was general approval to my edits when I submitted >> them, except that Nick wanted to keep the original heading, as I recall. >
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2019 18:41:34 UTC