Re: [httpapi] linkset draft ready for next steps

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

Am 04.07.2021 um 14:10 schrieb Erik Wilde:
> hello rich.
>
> On 2021-06-08 16:17, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> So I think that this is the plan we should follow.  Julian will post
>> his comments (ideally this week, perhaps next) and the authors will
>> respond and perhaps post a new draft. If there's disagreement or
>> controversy, we'll repeat that cycle until issues are settled.  Once
>> that's done, we'll issue a working group last call (WGLC) and proceed.
>
> we just published a new version after resolving all open issues without
> any remaining disagreements. we think that we now are ready for the next
> step, and we're curious to see the result of the WGLC.
>
> thanks a lot to julian for all his valuable and constructive feedback,
> it helped to improve the draft.
> ...

Here's some more...

The one-two-one mapping between link header field syntax and JSON makes
the JSON really complex. I understand that this is done for round-tripping.

There is however one case where I would argue that complexity could be
removed without major loss. See
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpapi-linkset-03.html#section-4.2.4.2>
which is about mapping RFC 8187 syntax, which allows inclusion of
language tags. I'm not aware of this being used in practice (and I'm
author of that RFC). Dropping the language information from JSON would
simpliy the datamodel somewhat.

Best regards, Julian