Re: [dxwg] Differentiating Functional & Data Profiling in Conneg (#1022)

@nicholascar how is that addressed at length by PR #1037 ? I'm looking at but section 2.1 is still called "Profiles for conformance" (while it could be called "functional profiles" to clarify) and the first occurrence of "profiles" in that section has an hyperlink to which is our regular "data profile"!

In addition, now that I'm looking to this preview of the document, I am getting more in line with @agreiner 's earlier comment. It is really, confusing to have a document called "Content Negotiation by Profile" and have this document start by discussing profiles that are not the ones that are being negotiated!

This is in fact reflected in the current note, which I think is rather correct but ends up saying that the specification is only about functional profiles:
`This specification describes how a system should behave and this section indicates different profiles of that behaviour, rather than content (data). `
while the key motivation for Conneg is data profiles!

By the way the note also hyperlinks "profiles" to the definition of "data profiles", which is wrong and "specification" to our definition of spec (basis for comparison etc.), which is not wrong but unnecessarily recursive (what does the reader gain from being refered to this definition, while it's mostly useful for defining the data profiles and their 'profiling' behaviour?)

GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2019 20:26:38 UTC