On Apr 24, 2017, at 14:48, Erik Wilde <erik(_dot_)wilde(_at_)dret(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On 2017-04-24 13:52, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Apr 24, 2017, at 10:49, Erik Wilde <erik(_dot_)wilde(_at_)dret(_dot_)net>
wrote:
- consider adding a serialization of web links to RFC 5988bis. this would
address the problem of how to serialize web links outside of the HTTP link
header field.
Sounds good to me.
What needs to be done to make sure links-json is a proper subset of this?
hard to tell as "this" is just speculation at this point. generally speaking,
i don't think it's such a great idea to piggyback on standards and then
reduce their expressiveness. imho that's one of the well-known anti-patterns
of interop: (extended) subsets.
but if you're shooting for a subset i think that's where you are right now.
it would be better to make sure that serializations of web links actually can
represent web links and not just some of the information that they convey.
that train may have left the station with RFC 6690, but maybe for the JSON
and CBOR serializations that can be changed.
Right. Can you be more specific what you would want to see here?
Grüße, Carsten