V1 specification #151
V1 specification #151
Conversation
|
@yamahito Can you update your commit messages to the standard form we use please (see: https://github.com/eXist-db/exist/blob/develop/CONTRIBUTING.md#commit-labels) |
@adamretter I have rebased to reword the commit messages, but it does still leave the old commits in the PR history: is this OK, or do you know how to remove the older commits with the incorrect wording? |
@yamahito Erm I am not really sure how that is possible... Can you describe what you did exactly and maybe I can help figure out what went wrong here? p.s. Your commit messages seems to still have a |
yamahito
force-pushed
the
v1-specification
branch
from
13438b1
to
24b13ff
Compare
Never mind, fixed it! I will go and amend those colons and capitals now I know how to do what I need. |
yamahito
force-pushed
the
v1-specification
branch
from
24b13ff
to
31303da
Compare
|
@adamretter I've been able to rebase my local git and force push the reworded commit messages to this branch: I believe that all the changes with the correct commit history (and messages) are now committed. I will add those changes from K-2963 to this PR that you've identified elsewhere and re-request the review. |
- this matches the original RESTXQ paper
- Adds content negotiation section to better reflect the original paper, and adds references between new sections and the annotations. - Adds (replicates) example from %rest:produces to %rest:consumes and new content negotiation section
|
@adamretter I have now added the actions from K-2963 and this is again ready for review. There was some refactoring of the I also spotted what I believe are some spelling errors, again, please let me know if this is specialised vocabulary that I have mistakenly "corrected". |
| fn:collection("/db/widgets")/widgets | ||
| }; | ||
| </pre> | ||
| <p>The mechanism by which formats are converted are implementation dependent.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think that is entirely correct, as it is also influenced by the %output:method annotation. I would suggest removing this paragraph please.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK; I wanted to clarify that the (automatic) representation of e.g. an XML fragment as a JSON map (such as is supported natively by eXist-db) was outside the scope of the specification. For now I will remove it as you suggest.
| @@ -903,6 +903,13 @@ <h4>rest:uri()</h4> | |||
| this is the <code>rest:base-uri()</code> appended with the path from the Path Annotation (if present) of the Resource Function. | |||
| </p> | |||
| </section> | |||
| <section> | |||
| <h4>rest:build-uri()</h4> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This does not match the example below!
| <section> | ||
| <h4>rest:build-uri()</h4> | ||
| <div class="exampleInner"> | ||
| <pre><code class="function">rest:get-absolute-uri($path-segments as <code class="type">xs:anyAtomicType+</code>)</code> as <code class="type">xs:anyURI</code></pre> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In K-2963 we suggested it should instead be named rest:build-absolute-uri, please fix this.
Updating Respec and fixing errors in V1 of the spec