- From: Linda van den Brink via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:00:45 +0000
- To: public-sdwig@w3.org
OGC Architecture Board (OAB) feedback on the non Webby OGC standards list: 1) Make the wording of the criteria used to decide if something should be on this list positive instead of negative. Each of these standards was a good agreement at the time but now we need simplified agreements for a larger / different audience. 2) Make the first criterium more clear. Currently it is formulated as: > It needs modernization to fully support and follow the fundamental concepts of current web architectures. For example, it uses http only as a transport protocol. In contrast, standards which use http as an interface are considered 'Webby'. OAB discussion suggests: - Include link to [webarch](https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/) - Describe more explicitly how we think http should be used; something like 'according to current practice, resource oriented, using web linking, and including developer-oriented documentation like OpenApi 3.0's. 3) There was some protest against WMS being on this list. WMS is a well-deployed standard and is at least partly 'webby'. It uses URLs + parameters for requests, but the response is an XML document. Is that enough reason to say this standard is not webby? 4) When listing non-webby OGC standards in the roadmap, the heading name should not be "Features not covered by ongoing work" - suggestion: "Established standards in the geospatial domain" -- GitHub Notification of comment by lvdbrink Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1079#issuecomment-442389280 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2018 10:00:47 UTC