- From: Luca Barbato <luca.barbato@luminem.it>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 11:04:36 +0200
- To: Ben Francis <ben@krellian.com>
- Cc: public-wot-wg@w3.org
On 25/04/24 20:42, Ben Francis wrote: > On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 18:30, Luca Barbato <luca.barbato@luminem.it > <mailto:luca.barbato@luminem.it>> wrote: > > That's the idea. I'm starting from the concern of people having TD > consumers that would get very confused by profiles. > > > Is there any evidence this actually happens in practice, or is it just a > theoretical concern? I think Daniel has a practical case, meanwhile I discussed with Cristiano and scripting-api right now does not cover response/additionalResponse so a consumer implementing scripting-api would have difficulties. > If that's what it boils down to, what response would a generic Consumer > expect from an HTTP POST request to this action endpoint, that if they > didn't receive it would confuse them? ActionAffordance::output is missing, Form::response is missing, Form::additionalResponses is missing, I consider the lack of DataSchema "anything goes", other consider it "expect nothing". Either way you could present it with a fire-and-forget action. > Perhaps just making it mandatory to set the synchronous member to false > for asynchronous actions would actually solve the problem. If would make the action excluded by Consumers only considering synchronous actions, but consumers mapping asynchronous actions as "fire-and-forget" might just happily invoke and then report an error if they get a success response with a payload they do not expect. And we are going back to not having any guidelines in the specs regarding degraded consumption... lu
Received on Friday, 26 April 2024 09:04:43 UTC