Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Missing RFC 3986 - Uniform Resource Identifier #33

Open
tpluscode opened this issue Nov 13, 2016 · 3 comments
Open

Missing RFC 3986 - Uniform Resource Identifier #33

tpluscode opened this issue Nov 13, 2016 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@tpluscode
Copy link
Contributor

I was very surprised that the web concepts pages do not include any URI specification. I do see that there isn't a good category for that as a concept.

Maybe there should be a new category created such as Basic concepts or similar?

@dret
Copy link
Owner

dret commented Nov 13, 2016

On 2016-11-13 11:07, Tomasz Pluskiewicz wrote:

I was very surprised that the web concepts pages do not include any URI
specification. I do see that there isn't a good category for that as a
concept.

and that's the reason. unless the spec itself registers a bunch of
concept values (such as RFC5988 registering link relations), the spec
does not show up. i agree that this is potentially confusing, but it is
logical given the setup as it is so far.

Maybe there should be a new category created such as Basic concepts or
similar?

any idea how you would like these things to show up?

i have added something a tiny bit similar by all the concept pages
having links to the respective IANA registries. that's not exactly what
you are looking far, but is essentially how far i got.

i agree that adding these foundational specs would make sense, but i
have not quite figured out how they would best appear in the context of
the site as it is.

@tpluscode
Copy link
Contributor Author

In all fairness it's not really about the spec but about the fundamental itself. Isn't URI a very important concept? I wonder though what other fundamentals could belong to such a category on the web concepts site

@dret
Copy link
Owner

dret commented Nov 15, 2016

On 2016-11-14 01:37, Tomasz Pluskiewicz wrote:

In all fairness it's not really about the spec but about the fundamental
itself. Isn't URI a very important concept? I wonder though what other
fundamentals could belong to such a category on the web concepts site

again, i do not object to your concerns. it simply does not fit into the
current setup, and that is why it's not there.

what about this:

  • each concept can have 0-n "foundation specs".
  • the foundation specs are listed prominently on the concept's page.
  • the foundation specs show up in the spec list and their individual
    landing pages indicate which concepts they are foundations for.

that's just one quick idea how address your issue. if you have other
ideas, please let me know!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants