- From: Lars G. Svensson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:08:47 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@aisaac scripsit: > @larsgsvensson @RubenVerborgh @rob-metalinkage I have an action to call for your feedback about this case, now that it's been edited by Nick :-) I find this UC highly relevant and we really should derive requirements from it. As Antoine says, it might be that we don't approve all requirements but then at least we'll know why... @agreiner scripsit: > I worry that use of conneg will incentivize publishing without providing human navigable profile info. Yes, might be. And there seems to be rough consensus that the Profile Guidance Document tell implementers that they SHOULD offer human-readable documentation on what profiles are available (possibly being different ones for different media types) and MAY tell the user how to get data adhering to those profiles without using conneg. Do I see that right? An aside to MUST vs SHOULD: AFAIK, when making a SHOULD requirement it's good practice to give examples of circumstances when it's not necessary to implement the requirement (thus not making it a MUST). What could be considered so special circumstances that we don't mandate the existence of an HTML page? -- GitHub Notification of comment by larsgsvensson Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/239#issuecomment-405259759 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 16 July 2018 14:08:51 UTC