Fixed: Specify that EFPs must be relative to OR. #228
Conversation
ahankinson
requested review from
rosy1280,
awoods,
zimeon,
julianmorley and
neilsjefferies
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Although not harmful, it seems that is added sentence is redundant with the definition of "existing file path", introduced in: https://github.com/OCFL/spec/pull/225/files
|
It is mentioned in the terminology section, but I think we decided that normative language is not used in terminology. So this is primarily to apply the normative language to the requirement for EFPs. |
|
I agree with @ahankinson that it is good to make this clear statement in the main text, even if it duplicates the definition. I guess this will have conflicts given other LFP->EFP changes. I suggest that the sentence should be part of the previous paragraph rather than living on its own. |
|
The extra clarity works for me. |
draft/spec/index.html
Outdated
| @@ -515,6 +515,10 @@ <h2>Manifest</h2> | |||
| containing the <a>logical file path</a>s of files in the OCFL Object that have content with the | |||
| given digest. | |||
| </p> | |||
| <p> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggest combine into preceding para but otherwise good by me
|
sigh ignore me. Re-opening b/c that one was already merged. |
|
Editorial change, merging on 3... |
This PR specifies that existing file paths MUST be given relative to the Object Root.