In that case those (incl myself possibly) acting as editor need to qualify and scope all mentions of HTTP-Link via canonical reference. Andy On 7 Oct 2010, at 11:31, "Ralf Nyren" <ralf@nyren.net> wrote:
As long as all parts of the spec are crystal clear on whether it is Link base type, HTTP Link Header, etc that is referred to I am fine with any name :-D
Let's say I have had to point out the importance of the distinction more than once... ;)
regards, Ralf
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:57:04 +0200, Edmonds, AndrewX <andrewx.edmonds@intel.com> wrote:
I'd agree with what Alex positions - we still have a namespace (be it explicit or implicit) that is OCCI. Link is still good with me. If people get confused with HTTP Link and OCCI Link then perhaps they're reading the wrong spec! :-p
-----Original Message----- From: occi-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:occi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of alexander.papaspyrou@tu-dortmund.de Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 6:33 PM To: ralf@nyren.net Cc: occi-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Renaming the "Link" base type
I'd vote for keeping "Link". Core should be clean, and not tailored to some naming in the renderings. I know that, for HTTP, certain things are fix, but I don't see such a danger for confusions, anyway.
-Alexander
Am 06.10.2010 um 16:33 schrieb Ralf Nyren:
Hi,
It is easy to confuse the OCCI "Link" base type with HTTP "Link Header" and the general term of linking.
Therefore it was proposed during today's conf call to rename the base type "Link" to "ResourceLink". That way we let the name make clear what the Link is used for, i.e. linking Resources.
Would appreciate your comments. Deadline is on Friday.
regards, Ralf
_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg