- From: Karol Szczepański via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 20:42:38 +0000
- To: public-hydra-logs@w3.org
> I concur. The only issue I have with just the "downgrade" is that we'd completely lose any semantics. > Replacing that with `rangeIncludes` give back some of that hint fo what kinds of descriptions are expected. But it breaks existing clients and specs. > And #186 is just a tad too narrow in scope. Well, baby steps. I feel this issue is to wide > Maybe let's ignore multipart for now. If we can get the basic structure extensible "enough", > then such an extension can be developed on the side without invading the core. Yep - sounds reasonable. > It is similar. I hoped to gather the best of both ideas. I'm opened. I'll invite community on the mailing list tomorrow (I've reached my limit today) to the discussion. -- GitHub Notification of comment by alien-mcl Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/199#issuecomment-512560694 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2019 20:42:39 UTC