Re: Pagination - let's finalize the collection design (ISSUE-42)

On 10/14/2015 03:15 PM, Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
> 2015-10-13 11:19 GMT+02:00 Tomasz Pluskiewicz <tomasz@t-code.pl>:
> 
>> Oh my, I see what Markus fears. It is certainly possible to combine all sorts of
>> external vocabs and create a Franken-Hydra.
> 
> What would Franken-Hydra look like? I'm not sure I would draw the line
> for when Hydra turns into a monster the same place as everyone else on
> this list. I might, I'm just not sure, so an example would be useful.
> :-)
> 
>> But that said they are out there for reuse, provided that they don't introduce
>> some fancy semantics.
> 
> The fact that they exist and are well known (as per their usage in
> HTML, HTTP headers and elsewhere) trumps "fancy semantics", imho. It's
> of course a balance, but the relations we're discussing in this thread
> does not come with any sort of fancy semantics and some even have
> lengthy RFCs that explain the samtics they convey. If Hydra defines
> new relations, we're basically throwing all of that work away and need
> to do it ourselves, quite possibly in a way that is incompatible with
> the existing semantics and usage.
> 
> As I've written elsewhere[1]:
[...]____
> [1] https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues/39#issuecomment-148041742
> 

Thank you for expressing your support directly on this github issue!

http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-paging/#terms-from-paging

reuses IANA link relations, but as of know it will not work with
including controls in the body of responses as Ruben suggests in

http://ruben.verborgh.org/blog/2015/10/06/turtles-all-the-way-down/

Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2015 14:45:54 UTC