Hi Richard, since the new version has been submitted, the actual section with the example you mention is 8.5.3 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-protocol-15#section-8.5.3).
On the substance of the question, I believe it's essential to have the syntax flexible enough to reflect proper semantics. However -- forgive the JavaScript speak -- with the current specification the distinction between "leaf" and "container" would basically require a check on (media-types.length == 1), while with the proposed change it would turn out to (typeof media-types == "string"), correct? If that's the case, honestly I don't see a big gain in doing it. But I'm not an implementor nor have a strong preference, so I'll let others express more articulated opinions. Either way works for me. Enrico On 5/7/13 10:18 PM, Y. Richard Yang wrote: > Dear all, > > As we work to finalize a newer version to get feedback, here is a quick > question that we need feedback/comments to have a quick closure. The > issue can be discussed using the current posted version > (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-protocol/?include_text=1), > although we will post a newer version soon. > > Specifically, consider the first IRD example in Sec. 7.6.3. One can > identify that among the six entries, 5 are base or "leaf" entries, which > represent specific Information Resources, and one is a "container" entry: > > { > "uri" : "http://custom.alto.example.com/maps";, > "media-types" : [ > "application/alto-networkmap+json", > "application/alto-costmap+json" > ], > "accepts" : [ > "application/alto-networkmapfilter+json", > "application/alto-costmapfilter+json" > ] > }, > > In other words, one can envision that IRD can be a hierarchy for > flexibility and delegation. > > A question is whether we explicitly distinguish such two types of > entries in syntax -- they are different in semantics already. > > Note that distinguishing the two types by simply checking the number of > entries in media-types or accepts will be less robust. > > One possibility is the following. A "leaf" IRD entry has the format: > "uri": "" > > "media-type": "" > "accept": "" > "capabilities" : {} > > A "container" IRD has the format: > "uri" : > "media-types" : [] > "accepts" : [] > // no capabilities > > Any thought? > > Richard > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
