- From: Karol Szczepański via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 20:48:00 +0000
- To: public-hydra-logs@w3.org
>Inlined controls will use the same descriptions, no? If API uses profiles A and B then you might expect those profiles applied to inline hypermedia. Am I missing something? Imagine a situation when API documentation declares a profile `A`, but inlined controls are using profile `B`. Which one is in force? >I would not consider this. An API chooses to use a certain method of describing its hypermedia and it is up to the client to support it. I think it's the opposite. Hydra claims to provide interoperability with minimum terms and maximum extensibility. I can imagine a situation server can provide same information provided using different vocabularies (or non-RDF ways). I think it may be valuable to enable the client to express it's preferences (which then can be taken into account or not - it's up to the server). >Hydra should not worry about negotiating profiles. I don't think we should create something to support it - the link you @asbjornu provided is interesting and may be a good starting point. I think I can see both terms `level` and `profile` used simultanously - `level` for spec interpretation, `profile` for extensibility. -- GitHub Notification of comment by alien-mcl Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/216#issuecomment-634930777 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2020 20:48:02 UTC