Open glenrobson opened 1 year ago
julsraemy
commented
1 year ago Suggestion in the implementation notes: instead of IIIF-C validator, I would write IIIF Presentation API Validator and link it to https://presentation-validator.iiif.io/.
triplingual
commented
1 year ago @julsraemy I like this. @glenrobson What do you think? Since the recipe hasn't yet gone out to TRC, if you think it's sensible I'll make the change ASAP.
glenrobson
commented
1 year ago I also think its a good suggestion but maybe wait to make the change until after the TRC review period.
regisrob
commented
1 year ago A tiny detail in Implementation notes: I do not see why ranges is treated like a property and not written "Ranges" like other Presentation API resource types.
cubap
commented
1 year ago I would support changing the reason for the empty items to be that you are asserting no image available. The validator note can be changed to describe that such a Canvas is valid but indicates that it is just a reference to a more complete Canvas.
triplingual
commented
1 year ago (Usual comment that I upvoted my own recipe)
glenrobson
commented
1 year ago +1: 19 [akrishnan15 cubap danieltbrennan dlpierce glenrobson hadro ioanrichards irv julsraemy kirschbombe ktamaral markpbaggett nfreire regisrob robcast tpendragon triplingual tristanr-cogapp rentonsa] 0: 0 [] -1: 0 [] Not TRC: 1 [cul-util] Ineligible: 1 [emilyewahl]
Super majority is in favor, issue is approved
triplingual
commented
9 months ago Changes to implement from
triplingual
commented
9 months ago Ach, @cubap I neglected to credit you in the commit for your change. Apologies!
Links
Background and Summary
This recipe covers a common use case with IIIF Manifests where the item that is being digitised has pages that haven't been scanned. This could be due to a mistake during scanning or the source image could be blank or lost. This recipe covers the recommend method for identifing pages which are missing and can help with showing paginated pages in a viewer.
Voting and changes
We welcome comments on the recipe and as well as voting +1, confused face or -1 feel free to add comments to this issue. If this issue is approved then the author will take account of the comments before we merge the branch in to the master cookbook branch.
If the recipe is rejected by the TRC then we will make the changes requested and resubmit it to a future TRC meeting. If you feel that your comments are substantial enough that the recipe should be looked at again by the TRC after the changes have been made please vote -1 (thumbs down). A confused face is treated as abstaining.
Changes to the recipe will only be made after the TRC voting process has concluded.