- From: elf Pavlik <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 16:45:44 +0200
- To: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- CC: public-ldpnext@w3.org, Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
On 10/14/2015 03:15 PM, Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote: > 2015-10-13 11:19 GMT+02:00 Tomasz Pluskiewicz <tomasz@t-code.pl>: > >> Oh my, I see what Markus fears. It is certainly possible to combine all sorts of >> external vocabs and create a Franken-Hydra. > > What would Franken-Hydra look like? I'm not sure I would draw the line > for when Hydra turns into a monster the same place as everyone else on > this list. I might, I'm just not sure, so an example would be useful. > :-) > >> But that said they are out there for reuse, provided that they don't introduce >> some fancy semantics. > > The fact that they exist and are well known (as per their usage in > HTML, HTTP headers and elsewhere) trumps "fancy semantics", imho. It's > of course a balance, but the relations we're discussing in this thread > does not come with any sort of fancy semantics and some even have > lengthy RFCs that explain the samtics they convey. If Hydra defines > new relations, we're basically throwing all of that work away and need > to do it ourselves, quite possibly in a way that is incompatible with > the existing semantics and usage. > > As I've written elsewhere[1]: [...]____ > [1] https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues/39#issuecomment-148041742 > Thank you for expressing your support directly on this github issue! http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-paging/#terms-from-paging reuses IANA link relations, but as of know it will not work with including controls in the body of responses as Ruben suggests in http://ruben.verborgh.org/blog/2015/10/06/turtles-all-the-way-down/
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2015 14:45:55 UTC