Hi all,
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 07:03:10AM -0500, Andy Newton wrote:
> I believe you are correct that a link context is not well defined.
> It is supposed to be the scope in which a link is to be understood.
RFC 8288 (section 2) has:
This specification does not define a general syntax for li
On 1 March 2024 22:31:30 CET, rep.dot@gmail.com wrote:
>We've implemented this, but it's just..
churn.
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
On 28 February 2024 13:03:10 CET, "Andrew Newton (andy)" wrote:
>Hi James,
>
>RFC 7483 did not require the 'value' attribute, however when the
>standard was revised in RFC 9083 this attribute became required.
>
And, as said elsewhere, this was a very bad idea indeed.
Is there any client, that wou
Hi James,
RFC 7483 did not require the 'value' attribute, however when the
standard was revised in RFC 9083 this attribute became required.
I believe you are correct that a link context is not well defined. It
is supposed to be the scope in which a link is to be understood. In a
JSON response ful
