[httpapi] Re: Questions regarding RFC 9457 Problem Details

[Erik Wilde <[e-mail]>]

Hello Gerhard.

On 2024-09-04 17:16, [e-mail] wrote:
> Wouldn’t it be better to separate the concerns of an ID and a link to documentation?
> For example:
> "type": "Unauthorized",
> "about": " https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7235#section-3.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7235#section-3.1>"

Once you wrap your head around it (and accept that URIs don't have to be dereferencable), you can get the job done with just one field.

- you want just a value and no dereferencable identifier: use the URI tag or other schemes that are identification-only.

- you want a dereferencable identifier: use http(s) and return information in whatever way you find helpful, which you can even make dynamic with content negotiation.

we had seen some confusion in the field and therefore added some clarification (for example mentioning the tag scheme), but maybe that wasn't clear enough:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9457.html#name-type

personally, i am not a fan of the "use resolvable URIs" model because i do think it creates more brittleness than value. but the semweb vibe of the last 20 years have meant that this has become sort of a dogma, and i think URIs have enough flexibility to work with this dogma in the way that you prefer.

cheers,

dret.

-- 
Erik Wilde | mailto:[e-mail]    |
            | https://youtube.com/ErikWilde |