Re: [spec-reviews] http-problem (#37)

Hey Alex,

No worries. I'm going to open separate issues on my repo and link back here to make sure we don't lose anything (both for your comments and @domenic's).

> Reserving an extension syntax is a good idea: Having something like "-" to delimit extensions from built-in items, or defining your extension object (where anything goes) is a good idea early on. Don't really have a preference, but "-" in the name seems fine.

I got some pushback from people on using '-' in names, as there's a preference for camelCase in many existing APIs. Given @domenic's preference above, an extension object might be better.

> "instance" is odd: it doesn't define a schema for the problem definition or the information to be de-ref'd. Is this common enough to need to be part of a spec? Is their prior art justifying it?

See explanation above - does that make sense? Obviously need to improve docs if both you and @domenic didn't get this.

> How is the pre-defined problem-type registry going to be maintained?: It isn't clear how additions will get made. Who "owns" it?

There isn't a registry; you just use the URI. If a common set of useful types develops, people can collect them together in informal resources (e.g. a wiki). Good enough?

> In general, I think this is great. Love that it's happening. Is there someplace I can look to understand the discussion that led to each of the fields?

Hmm, it was discussed a bit on-list, and in my repo before that. See:
  https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues?q=is%3Aissue+label%3Ahttp-problem



---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/37#issuecomment-85236686