- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:16:40 +0100
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
Hi Markus, > I assumed it would be me :-) Help would definitely be appreciated though. For me it's the same who does it, as long as it gets done :-) The TPF spec depends on pagination, and different parties are implementing, so anything I can do to speed up the process, I'm glad to do. > Should we briefly discuss how to restructure the spec before we start > writing this? We currently have four resolved issues [1] that haven't been > integrated in the spec yet. I think this would be a good moment to briefly > reflect on the overall structure of the spec. Yes, exactly. Perhaps we should do all of this in a major rewrite of the spec. > If you agree, I'll try to get some basic structure laid out till the weekend That would be great. In particular, I'd love to see a division between application state, resource state, and API description. > The alternative would be to simply > update the collections [2] section and rethink the overall structure at a > later point. Can we maybe already fix the biggest inconsistencies, like the names of the first/next/previous/last properties? This takes less than an hour, but would avoid diverging implementations. Also, now that paging is decided, I should think about making a test suite for the TPF spec. Best, Ruben
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2015 12:17:11 UTC