3 ms·
Well, the spec says that the type is a URI, only encouraging implementers to use URIs that can be dereferenced to human readable documentation but not forcing i
by mstade 4y ago
Well, the spec says that the type is a URI, only encouraging implementers to use URIs that can be dereferenced to human readable documentation but not forcing it.
You’re free to use whatever URI suits your purpose, like a URN or maybe even your on scheme. All the spec asks is that it’s a URI which is a wide and flexible range of identifiers, only a subset of which actually point somewhere.
- wongarsu 4y agoI fully expect people to adopt something like "error:validation-error" for the type field, followed by decades of arguments whether that's ok (it follows the URI format, but does it identify a resource?)
- chrismorgan 4y agoThe sort of people that deliberately use the Problem Details format rather than rolling their own are the sort of people who will agonise over the URIs they choose, making sure they’re meaningful in some way. (I’m simplifying, of course, but I think it’ll be a decent generalisation.)
- mstade 4y agoI mean, isn't that how it should be though? Pick a scheme (preferrably not in the IANA registry), design something, figure out what works in practice, optionally find it so nice that you'd like to share it with the world and make an RFC to register a new scheme. Rinse and repeat.
- cxr 4y agoNot in this case, no; not when it's trivial to put a URL there.