Re: Protocol question: PreferMinimalContainer

In theory, we shouldn't touch the official CR documents any more, although if there are clear technical mistakes, I guess it is acceptable _right now_. Once the transition request is approved (the call is scheduled tomorrow a week) that should become a definite no-no. However, making purely editorial changes (and I understand what you propose is editorial) is better left for the next round.

I would propose creating issues for these, and marking them as belonging to the PR milestone, to be taken care of, editorially, once we have the CR published.

While I am at it, just summarizing the essential rules of the game now: when we go to the next stage, ie, Proposed Recommendation (confusingly, we use the PR acronym for it in the W3C jargon, which is the same as Github's pull request's acronym…:-(, what we are allowed to change in the document are:

- removal/change of features explicitly called out as 'at risk'
- minor technical mistakes in the text that do not change the technical content; the point is that those changes should not change the implementation results, should not introduce new features, etc
- editorial changes

*If* the implementation reveal technical flaws that require more serious changes, we are supposed to go to a 2nd CR. That may be very short (a few weeks) to allow existing implementations to update, but an extra admin step nevertheless.

Cheers

Ivan


> On 15 Jun 2016, at 22:11, Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com> wrote:
> 
> Related to my confusion is this line from 4.1.1:
> 
> “If no preference is given by the client, the server should return the full annotation descriptions. The server may ignore the client's preference.”
> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/#client-preferences <http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/#client-preferences>
>   <>
> Preference is expressed on the AnnotationCollection, but pagination URLs are used to link to the contents of the container, so…”SHOULD return the full annotation descriptions” is really talking about what happens after a request is made for the first or last page linked from the AnnotationCollection?
> 
> If that’s indeed the case, I’d love to tweak that sentence to express that.
> 
> Cheers!
> Benjamin
> --
> http://bigbluehat.com/ <http://bigbluehat.com/>
> http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung <http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung>
> 
> From: Benjamin Young [mailto:byoung@bigbluehat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 11:48 AM
> To: public-annotation@w3.org; Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
> Subject: Protocol question: PreferMinimalContainer
> 
> Given that an AnnotationContainer document doesn’t every include `items` direction—only links to `first` and/or `last` pages—what is the value add of `PreferMinimalContainer`?
> 
> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/#client-preferences <http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/#client-preferences>
> 
> It seems that the response to that request would be identical to either the default (PreferContainedDescriptions) or, given the preference for minimalism, it would be identical to PreferContainedIRIs—in which case one or the other of these isn’t needed.
> 
> Each of these preferences really only dictates the IRIs used for `first` and `last` afaict.
> 
> Or am I missing something obvious? :)
> 
> Cheers!
> Benjamin
> 
> --
> http://bigbluehat.com/ <http://bigbluehat.com/>
> http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung <http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung>

----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704