Enrico, all, I've read -14. Please find below my thoughts on the open questions.
> - get acquainted with the issues that have been discussed since the > previous meeting, including (in no particular order): > o reason phrase for error messages; I find the arguments against strings somehow convincing. > o relative vs. absolute URIs; I don't care; others have commented on that already a lot. > o behavior of degenerated map filtering; Both behaviors seem reasonable, and I am fine either way. One reason in favor of returning empty maps could be their size: We know that ALTO maps can be very large, i. e., the server could return many megabytes of data for a query that is not really well-specified. But this is not a strong argument, given that ALTO maps can be large anyway, and the client has to be prepared for that. > o merge of cost-mode and cost-type in a single type; In my understanding, the difference between numerical and ordinal costs is minor, and the former can mostly emulate the latter. But given that this has been in the spec for a long time, I don't see an urgent need to change that. > o format of endpoint properties; Allowing generic json values seems important for potential future extensions. > o mandatory vs. optional services; Regarding that question, -14 looks fine to me as it is. The services of a server will also depend on the ALTO use case, and I don't think we should mandate too much in the base protocol spec. Thanks Michael _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
