profile-based conneg? #23
Comments
|
On Jun 22, 2021, at 21:20, Julian Reschke ***@***.***> wrote:
The "profile" attribute for media types to Represent Sets of Links
The profile parameter MAY be used by clients to express their preferences, and, if a client does so, a server SHOULD return a document that honors the profiles it recognizes, and MUST ignore the profiles which it does not recognize.
Is this about HTTP content negotiation? In that case linking to the specific part of the HTTP spec might be helpful.
I don’t think this is about content negotiation because AFAIK Profile negotiation isn’t standardized yet. Although there’s attempts, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-svensson-profiled-representations/
So, this is just about expressing profiles for the benefit of clients.
H
… —
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
|
So if it's not about HTTP connect, what is it about? Concrete example? |
|
On Jun 22, 2021, at 23:00, Julian Reschke ***@***.***> wrote:
So, this is just about expressing profiles for the benefit of clients.
So if it's not about HTTP connect, what is it about? Concrete example?
From Section 5:
For example, the attribute could be used
to indicate that a link set uses a specific, limited set of link
relation types.
H
… —
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
|
|
That's the server using it. But the spec says:
What's an example use by a client? |
|
On Jun 22, 2021, at 23:27, Julian Reschke ***@***.***> wrote:
That's the server using it. But the spec says:
The profile parameter MAY be used by clients to express their preferences (...)
What's an example use by a client?
Oh, now I get it. It’s about this:
The profile parameter MAY be used by clients to express their
preferences, and, if a client does so, a server SHOULD return a
document that honors the profiles it recognizes, and MUST ignore the
profiles which it does not recognize.
I tend to agree that it could be appropriate to leave this part out and leave this aspect to potentially forthcoming profile negotiation guidelines.
H
… —
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
|
|
Closing this as it was addressed by removing the sentence that suggested negotiation. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Is this about HTTP content negotiation? In that case linking to the specific part of the HTTP spec might be helpful.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: