Open angelo-v opened 6 months ago
Unless there's something I'm missing, I would say that either a list of instances or separate registrations per instance are both acceptable.
: Is it allowed to leave out the solid:TypeRegistration type as SolidOS does?
I assume you mean omitting something like :X a solid:TypeRegistration;
. Normally it is good practice to include types, but since TypeRegistrations are the only type expected in the index, I'm not sure it makes a practical difference.
This question is also related to #29 .
If all is allowed it adds more complexity to the clients reading from type index. It is much easier to just query for the one solid:TypeRegistration
that matches the right forClass
compared to having to consider multiple registrations.
Also I am not sure if it imposes security issues if anything that is not a TypeRegistrations makes statements about where to find things. But I guess this is not an issue as long as we only read from the trusted type index document
My understanding until today was, that there should only be one type registration per class, and I list all the instances under the
solid:instance
predicate, like thisHowever I noticed, that the SolidOS contacts-pane creates a new type registration for each address book like this:
Which one is correct, or should either be allowed?
Also: Is it allowed to leave out the
solid:TypeRegistration
type as SolidOS does?