benfrancis
commented
1 year ago This is a slight improvement in that it no longer says that it says all the keywords MUST be supported by all Consumers. However, the PR does not address all of the many issues I identified in #255.
I maintain that the only way to make this section implementable by all Consumers is to make all of the link relation types and media types optional, but they are already optional/recommended in the Thing Description specification which therefore makes this section redundant.
The Editor's Note should be a Note and there are grammatical errors introduced in this PR, but that's a bit of a moot point since I think the whole section needs to be removed.
Maybe this section could recommend a smaller set of link relation types than the TD specification (though what does that mean if a superset is already recommended in the TD spec?), and recommend a set of media types (which the TD specification doesn't currently do), but that doesn't really guarantee out-of-the-box interoperability and any such list should be based on implementation experience, not just an arbitrary list.
mlagally
This PR provides additional clarifications on the link relationship types and the normative requirements. The purpose is to clarify the intention of the "signaling"that is provided with the link relation.
Preview | Diff