DataLinks and ID data types.

[François Bonnarel]

Hi all,

Le 03/04/2020 à 12:31, Mark Taylor a écrit :
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, Markus Demleitner wrote:
>
>> Hi Pat,
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 12:52:03PM -0700, Patrick Dowler wrote:
>>> I think this is really a bug requiring an erratum, which I would be happy
>>> to write up asap.
>> I'm agreed on the bug nature, and I'm grateful for the the write-up
>>
>>> * side issue: I think it would be legit for someone to also specify an
>>> xtype like xtype="uri" (because I think that's already permitted and
>>> matches the whole meaning of xtype) but I don't know if I would write that
>>> into the erratum or not... because I don't really think it needs to be
>>> written it into the specification to be allowed. Would anyone actively want
>>> this written in?
>> If we do that at all, that ought to be a different erratum.
> It's pushing the usage of Erratum a little bit.

2 cents

      1 ) I agree the lack of typing of ID is an erratum and should be 
managed so.

      2 ) if the xtype="uri" is to be done we can add this in DataLink 1.1

      3 ) What is this xtype saying ? This "ID" PARAM string helps to 
build an URI (in combination with accessURL) but is not an uri per se ? 
Or is that xtype for the accessURL PARAM ?

Cheers

François


>   
>> My question would be: What's the use case for that extra annotation?
>> Is there anything that would evaluate it?
> --
> Mark Taylor   Astronomical Programmer   Physics, Bristol University, UK
> m.b.taylor at bris.ac.uk +44-117-9288776  http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/