- From: Markus Lanthaler via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2017 20:24:44 +0000
- To: public-hydra-logs@w3.org
Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r4. Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 12 unresolved discussions, some commit checks broke. --- *[drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md, line 10 at r1](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/143#-KxcV7lBobudR-WyuFut:-KxtBUqFPygj2UGo9Mdm:b-w5vguu) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/f03e3028e6417adf2767a44c0c854b4af3b5fb4d/drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md#L10)):* <details><summary><i>Previously, elf-pavlik (elf Pavlik) wrote…</i></summary><blockquote> For the client, one of the benefits comes with enabling it to create content while online, establishing relationships and then syncing it with a server once online, maybe even with https://github.com/WICG/BackgroundSync To keep it simple I think we can just mention service (server) - take advantage of Idempotence app (client) - control the URL (but here HTTP slug heder might also do) </blockquote></details> +1 to what Pavlik said. Mentioning idempotency seems like a great idea. --- *[drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md, line 42 at r1](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/143#-KxcW88cm2en7sVc9HI0:-KxtCC4rNCLPXUSujr11:bjvgb37) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/f03e3028e6417adf2767a44c0c854b4af3b5fb4d/drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md#L42)):* <details><summary><i>Previously, elf-pavlik (elf Pavlik) wrote…</i></summary><blockquote> I don't think that any use cases which we really care about will escape our attention, it may come up again when we continue with adding existing resources as members to collections </blockquote></details> Yeah, let's just drop it for now or copy it over into a separate document/PR. I don't think creating issues for these things is very efficient. --- *[drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md, line 64 at r1](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/143#-KxYcL7VkgLlvZsRJlA4:-KxtD_6txfbj7W0R-vgg:b-dy8194) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/f03e3028e6417adf2767a44c0c854b4af3b5fb4d/drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md#L64)):* <details><summary><i>Previously, elf-pavlik (elf Pavlik) wrote…</i></summary><blockquote> I think so... once again I suggest to wait until a really strong use case for such scenario shows up </blockquote></details> Yeah, it's the same use case I mentioned above. --- *[drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md, line 72 at r1](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/143#-KxchCDgCDQQ4nzkMnf4:-KxtDwqUV-XwjVrCX1Qi:bj2wuwc) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/f03e3028e6417adf2767a44c0c854b4af3b5fb4d/drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md#L72)):* <details><summary><i>Previously, elf-pavlik (elf Pavlik) wrote…</i></summary><blockquote> In cases where one uses opaquer IRI, we shouldn't expect that variable in template maps to any value relevant for the payload. How about we leave this one without property and follow up in this issue - https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/145 </blockquote></details> If you have a IRI template, the IRI isn't opaque anymore. You describe it's structure with the template... and thus it is also necessary to describe what the variables stand for. --- *[drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md, line 78 at r1](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/143#-KxY28Opn5nMlgaMrFGV-r1-78:-KxtEJ9UVNjdUId_tA6C:bfmclui) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/f03e3028e6417adf2767a44c0c854b4af3b5fb4d/drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md#L78)):* <details><summary><i>Previously, tpluscode (Tomasz Pluskiewicz) wrote…</i></summary><blockquote> There wasn't a `memberTemplate` when Karol asked his question, mind you. </blockquote></details> OK, we can close this comment then I guess if @alien-mcl agrees (please mark it as resolved here in Reviewable if you are satisfied with it so that it can close these threads; I see quite a few of the comments are still blocked) --- *[drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md, line 135 at r4](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/143#-KxtFDAmpCCHwXbesgFl:-KxtFDAmpCCHwXbesgFm:b124bhe) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/baedb558a156112c4d53f28a828208f7b725749d/drafts/use-cases/5.1.creating-event-with-put.md#L135)):* > ie. it's Should be "i.e., its" --- *Comments from [Reviewable](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/143)* <!-- Sent from Reviewable.io --> -- GitHub Notification of comment by lanthaler Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/pull/143#issuecomment-341231107 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2017 20:24:46 UTC