Closed dret closed 5 years ago
The important part was using terms like "context" to describe what the context of the link relation is.
On 2018-11-26 22:31, Mark Nottingham wrote:
The important part was using terms like "context" to describe what the context of the link relation is.
ok, i have now mentioned the context everywhere. i hope this is more along the lines of what you were expecting.
That's better, thanks.
Are you going to resubmit?
On 2018-11-27 23:51, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Are you going to resubmit?
yes, but i have two more reviews i want to go through and edit the drafts before i resubmit. should be done sometime this week.
assuming the second try was good enough and closing this issue.
note by @mnot (thanks!):
Just my personal .02 -
It would be great if the link relations (both in this document and the other one) were written in terms of RFC8288.
E.g. instead of: Linking to a resource providing information about a resource's or service's retirement policy and/or information. Something like: Identifies a resource that provides information about the context's retirement policy.
(We've been trying to make the use of terminology in the registry more consistent)