- From: Markus Lanthaler via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:28:42 +0000
- To: public-hydra-logs@w3.org
Reviewed 1 of 7 files at r1. Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 3 unresolved discussions. --- *[drafts/use-cases/1.1.security-considerations.md, line 18 at r2](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/132#-KrUSFWcxbytETQ1yIEc:-KrWxriD2rz8IzgZP7iz:b-ci6iv9) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/8c2db652e54f3e4ed52b855e05c73330d9d2d2ea/drafts/use-cases/1.1.security-considerations.md#L18)):* <details><summary><i>Previously, tpluscode (Tomasz Pluskiewicz) wrote…</i></summary><blockquote> Hm, wouldn't it be a good rule of thumb to mint an API-specific property for any such case? I think that is precisely what you did in events example... </blockquote></details> Yeah, it's exactly what I did in the events example.. but only because there was nothing else available. The goal is to create clients that "understand" these APIs to some degree so that they can figure out how to use them. If everyone mints property like `myvocab:events` only clients that have been written specifically for that API will understand them. If we have a generic mechanisms as the one Pavlik proposes here on the other hand, we can implement client libraries that can *find the collection that contains all events*. A custom link relation is only useful if it has some well-defined semantics that you can't convey otherwise. --- *[drafts/use-cases/5.creating-new-event.md, line 29 at r1](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/132#-KrT4ZeUK43qWAnpOI76:-KrWyhHk7NaD-nzLF9Uc:b2a66mm) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/7a85c04e5cbfa0958d3ffd64bb3fafbb423a1361/drafts/use-cases/5.creating-new-event.md#L29)):* <details><summary><i>Previously, tpluscode (Tomasz Pluskiewicz) wrote…</i></summary><blockquote> The problem with you analogy is that icon clearly defines the contents of the link's target. I'm not sure that is the case here. </blockquote></details> [Nope](https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#rel-icon), unless I misunderstand you. It just describes in what relationship the target (the icon) stands to the context IRI (the document). The optional target attributes on a link are just hints that help a client to choose the supposedly best matching link. It must not trust them though but interpret what it actually gets when it dereferences the URL. --- *Comments from [Reviewable](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/132)* <!-- Sent from Reviewable.io --> -- GitHub Notification of comment by lanthaler Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/pull/132#issuecomment-322270084 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 14 August 2017 18:28:42 UTC