- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:44:00 +0200
- To: Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
- CC: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
hello ruben. On 2015-06-16 11:54 , Ruben Verborgh wrote: > That might be what we are looking for. > Only drawback is that it's not specific, > i.e., it doesn't say that it's a TPF interface > (but neither does the other option BTW). well, i'd say that's why it's well-designed. link relations should not conflate *why* to follow links and *what* to expect when following them. if you feel the need to represent that, separate these concerns and use some sort of hint as suggested here: >> if you also would like to annotate the link with an expected media type, then hopefully the hypermedia format containing the link supports resource hints (https://github.com/dret/hyperpedia/blob/master/concepts.md#target-resource-hints), and then such a hint can be used to represent a media type that annotates the link. > That's a bit tricky, because TPFs can have different media types. > What we are looking for is probably more a profile then? well, if you feel that other or additional types of resource hints are more useful in your specific scenario, then you can use those as well. that's what designing hypermedia is all about: provide enough guidance so that clients can make decisions and achieve their application goals. cheers, dret.
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2015 14:44:41 UTC