The current ITF API proposal covers a number of aspects of enriched text collections that are in our opinion not strictly necessary for a text referencing specification. It could be an unnecessary burden for implementers of the API if implementation of these aspects is required for a full implementation of the specification.
We suggest to aim for a minimal core specification plus one or more API extensions, allowing implementers to restrict themselves to the core spec and whichever extensions are relevant for them.
Candidates for API extension:
Text resources, versions and releases, collection organisation (folder hierarchy, resource ordering) and the metadata to describe and organise this are often dealt with by Document Management or Repository Systems, that may have their own API.
Parts of the specifications for modes. See separate issue: Concerns with respect to use of modes
Enriched text as a result format. See separate issue: Mixing text and enrichments.
proycon
commented
8 months ago
The current ITF API proposal covers a number of aspects of enriched text collections that are in our opinion not strictly necessary for a text referencing specification. It could be an unnecessary burden for implementers of the API if implementation of these aspects is required for a full implementation of the specification.
We suggest to aim for a minimal core specification plus one or more API extensions, allowing implementers to restrict themselves to the core spec and whichever extensions are relevant for them.
Candidates for API extension: