Re: [apps-discuss] New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-link-hint-00.txt

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Hi Erik, 

Sorry for the delay - just back home now.

> but i have one question about the general registry model: the current draft says that hints MUST have a name (very reasonable, of course), but also that hints MUST have their data model being defined in JSON.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-link-hint-00#section-5.1
> 
> living in a world where we have JSON services, XML services, and RDF services, it seems that hard-coding a specific language data model into such a spec (without constraining it in any way) will limit the utility of such a registry.

It needs *a* data model.

> for example, in the Home Document draft, which is the original source of the link hint idea, the hints were hard-coded with very constrained data models. this made it relatively easy to expose them in a different syntax (in the XML Home Document draft):
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-home-xml-01#page-4
> 
> without getting too much into the details of this specific registry: what are the best practices about allowing/controlling language dependencies in registries?

Whoa, hold on - who said anything about a language? This is just the underlying data model; you can express it in a document however makes sense.

> personally, i would feel more comfortable with having a registry that is of equal value to people regardless of their implementation language

You're using "language" quite loosely here. 

> , but then again that means that the registry itself must define a "mini-language" of its own.

-1. Defining Yet Another Data Model as a political solution to avoid picking an existing one is sub-optimal at best.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/