- From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 21:59:45 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@azaroth42 - I think profiles should be able to specify CRS - its typically a constraint on data values so its a simple case (compared to, for example, profiles defining service level agreements or other dynamic behaviour) @lvdbrink is, i think, reiterating the point I was trying to make, in that we shouldnt expect or require every domain to make up its own approach to negotiation over variable aspects of data distribution. SDWIG should concern itself with the governance of identifiers, but not the nature of the mechanism. Then we end up in the "hard- vs soft-typed" ( or specialised vs qualified forms of predicates) decision. Given HTTP already has named headers for different dimensions of data variability - encoding, language then perhaps we are looking to establish best practice maybe prefix any dimension as Accept-X:value in a requirement , and respond with X:value and and have a register of X, with the owners of X responsible for defining how X is governed - any URI or a register of allowed values (like IANA mime types) -- GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/311#issuecomment-410866236 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 6 August 2018 21:59:48 UTC