Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Container Representations section should be more demanding #328

Closed
BigBlueHat opened this issue Jul 14, 2016 · 1 comment · Fixed by #334
Closed

Container Representations section should be more demanding #328

BigBlueHat opened this issue Jul 14, 2016 · 1 comment · Fixed by #334
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@BigBlueHat
Copy link
Member

Right now (and even after PR #321), the text is very light on requirements for the Server. The client, is told it MUST send certain things if it has preferences, but the Server (according to the text anyhow) is not told it MUST (or even SHOULD) do anything...at all.

This is merely 😉 editorial, I'd reckon and would likely look like rephrasing some of the "client MUST" text to associate it with the required response.

Seem about right?

@azaroth42
Copy link
Collaborator

Discussion on call 7/15 agrees that the (new) discussion of representations is too light on the server side, and it currently requires reading the examples and paying close attention as a server developer to sections headed as client concerns.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants