Inline... On 13 Aug 2010, at 15:01, Ralf Nyren wrote:
Agreed. This was just a quick and dirty thing. As soon as things merge into the "real" pages (core, infra or http), we have to take care of that.
Ok, sorry for being picky. It just that I have come to read many different OCCI examples from various documents where the examples seem to always vary in some small aspects and it is hard to tell what is significant and what is not.
You are totally right to be so and it's very welcomed :-) Just bear in mind that the canonical documents are those currently on the wiki. Those that are found on google code are not and serve only as a past record.
That way, you don't have to analyze the details of a REST resource, but just look at the MIME type delivered by the OCCI container.
If just for the purpose of the example I can somewhat agree. Otherwise I would say the Content-type header only reflect the body and not what kind of information you happen to have in the header.
Well, we will have to discuss this. I think that it would be good to use the content type for indicating what kind of type from the core model is currently shown; on the other hand, you are right: the MIME type indicates the content of the HTTP request/response.
I disagree, but we will have to discuss this of course. In older versions of the spec there are examples showing responses in application/ovf format. I think it is flexible to allow the response to a request to be returned in multiple formats. You should always provide the headers of course but the body could be plain/text, application/json, or whatever the client put in its Accept: header.
Good and fair point. Maintaining the capability to send content types like OVF is highly desirable.
No, but the "rel" item allows the registration of new terms ("category") in a defined manner.
Ah, indeed. So what semantic difference would the use of "category" have in this case? Link: <...>; rel="http://scheme/xxx" vs Link: <...>; rel="category http://scheme/xxx"
I.e. what are you trying to achieve here?
Here the want was to indicate the Link's target type and that it was a defined by a Category with a canonical schema could be identified by the URI.
regards, Ralf
_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg