Corrections and clarifications of REST API Spec#103
Conversation
Some markup and language tweaks for better reader clarity; some punctuation fixes for typos. Significant changes to **the `OPTIONS` method** section which did not conform to RFC 7231 -- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-4.3.7 -- as the example was for the specific `/data/` container, but the description was server-wide.
|
Thanks, @TallTed! Good work. My only question is - let's make sure that |
|
@dmitrizagidulin - I quite believe that I think such lack should be considered a defect in |
|
Sounds good. If you can, open an issue on node-solid-server to implement |
pfriedman
left a comment
pfriedman
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These look like appropriate changes making file read better.
|
@RubenVerborgh @kjetilk @dmitrizagidulin @elf-pavlik Conflicts from intervening changes resolved. Whoever can, please merge... |
|
Again... @RubenVerborgh @kjetilk @dmitrizagidulin @elf-pavlik Conflicts from more intervening changes resolved. Whomever can, please merge... |
|
Apparently needs new reviews, since conflict re-resolution... @pfriedman @dmitrizagidulin @gobengo were positive last round. |
kjetilk
left a comment
kjetilk
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, so, I don't see anything wrong with it, but also note that these documents needs reworking entirely.
|
@kjetilk - Understood, about the full rework. I think applying this relatively small adjustment before that full rework will result in a better end than leaving it out until after, at which point the rework may itself be broken because this error persists... |
4 participants
Some markup and language tweaks for better reader clarity; some punctuation fixes for typos.
Significant changes to the
OPTIONSmethod section which did not conform to RFC 7231 --https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-4.3.7 -- as the example was for the specific
/data/container, but the description was server-wide.