W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > May 2017

Re: Pagination best practices

From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 06:19:44 +0000
Message-ID: <0102015c33f61459-e38916dd-6178-4625-9bcc-4ed2d767260d-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
good morning;

> On 2017-05-23, at 08:02, Daniel Smedegaard Buus <danielbuus@gmail.com> wrote:
> […]
> When I started out two weeks back, I also briefly considered the Range
> header, but there are a couple of reasons why I don't want to go that
> route:
> 1) The Range header has a completely different meaning

what are these two “completely different meaning[s]”?

> 2) I have much more information that I want to convey and consume,
> such as number of pages, links to pages, sorting, etc., and they don't
> fit in there either.
> 3) HTTP headers are, well, HTTP-gnostic. I'd like my API to be
> transport-agnostic. And apart from that, putting pagination
> information in a header transfers state from the document to the
> transport layer, and I really want the API to offer REST in and of
> itself, and in all possible transport scenarios, be it HTTP, RPC, Unix
> sockets or carrier pigeons :D.

the api is not the model is not the transport.

in what way does the pagination relate to the way the model represents whatever it is that you intend that it should.
whenever i look at an entrained pagination encoding and ask that question, the answer has been “none”.
which leads to the question, “what is it doing there?"

best regards, from berlin,
james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2017 06:20:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:49 UTC