Response on https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/pull/100
> On 22 Apr 2015, at 12:36, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote:
> And indeed RFC 5988 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988> the Link spec confirms this with the following text:
> The "type" parameter, when present, is a hint indicating what the media type of the result of dereferencing the link should be. Note that this is only a hint; for example, it does not override the Content-Type header of a HTTP response obtained by actually following the link. There MUST NOT be more than one type parameter in a link-value.
Note that all of that makes more sense when one removes the legacy ontology elements that try to mimic the atom <link ...> element. Here I replace the href with an iana:alternate relation, and remove the link class. Doing this allows us to do the same as above, but it is clearer, simpler, and works nicely with content negotiation
<https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/124506/7276753/4e46bd18-e90c-11e4-947c-0930f443f2a2.png>
One should be careful when modelling things not to get mislead by syntax. It makes modelling a lot more complicated, the advantages are short lived - syntax fashions changem and what is good in one syntax is ugly in another - and it makes programming more complex.
Henry
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
