3 ms·

Yep, it definitely should be making reference to the IANA registry (will likely do this by referencing Web Linking RFC5988). The point here was not to necessar

Yep, it definitely should be making reference to the IANA registry (will likely do this by referencing Web Linking RFC5988). The point here was not to necessarily invent new capabilities, but to take a unique position in its design and bring together the most consistently useful assets of existing types whilst filtering out the noise. It's much healthier for the web than just returning plain JSON/XML or a custom media type.

deno 15y ago
It's preferable to return correctly annotated (with elements from aforementioned namespaces) XML, rather than ‘plain XML.’ My point was, that this vocabulary already exists and there's no reason to invent new (incompatible) one. If you think you can provide some improvement to any of that, you should definitely contribute to that standards. It's great that you care about what you output at all. Most developers don't, some even try to embrace their ignorance. I think that there's certainly a lack of user-friendly resources, that introduce developers to the best practices regarding data formats and public APIs. For example, a website, that would catalogue and provide examples of usage of certain conventions, would be, undeniably, a godsend. I hope we can all make the Web a better place, and just adopting already defined standards would be a tremendous achievement!
- AffableSpatula 15y ago
  HAL already incorporates standards for the URI template spec and the CURIE syntax. It's also going to be rejigged to incorporate terminology direct from the Web Linking RFC. The above being the case, it doesn't seem as if HAL is re-inventing anything significant from a standards perspective, and avoids inheriting baggage associated with pulling in elements from other namespace. Perhaps not a completely 'pure' approach, but the primary objective is simplicty - and I think doing things this way is a good balance. If this is something you feel strongly about, please join the google group and raise it there so we can discuss merits and trade-offs in more depth.

deno 15y ago

It's preferable to return correctly annotated (with elements from aforementioned namespaces) XML, rather than ‘plain XML.’ My point was, that this vocabulary already exists and there's no reason to invent new (incompatible) one. If you think you can provide some improvement to any of that, you should definitely contribute to that standards. It's great that you care about what you output at all. Most developers don't, some even try to embrace their ignorance. I think that there's certainly a lack of user-friendly resources, that introduce developers to the best practices regarding data formats and public APIs. For example, a website, that would catalogue and provide examples of usage of certain conventions, would be, undeniably, a godsend. I hope we can all make the Web a better place, and just adopting already defined standards would be a tremendous achievement!

AffableSpatula 15y ago
HAL already incorporates standards for the URI template spec and the CURIE syntax. It's also going to be rejigged to incorporate terminology direct from the Web Linking RFC. The above being the case, it doesn't seem as if HAL is re-inventing anything significant from a standards perspective, and avoids inheriting baggage associated with pulling in elements from other namespace. Perhaps not a completely 'pure' approach, but the primary objective is simplicty - and I think doing things this way is a good balance. If this is something you feel strongly about, please join the google group and raise it there so we can discuss merits and trade-offs in more depth.