Re: User Hypermedia format

Hi Mike,

Is a client obligated to load H-Factors associated with an embed directive?
E.g. I may have an affordance (form) with an list of options for some field
that is included as an embed directive, but unless I am exercising that
related affordance, it does not make sense to pre-load that list of options.

And if embed directives are at the discretion of the client, is the point
of an embed h-factor more a hint that you may want to load this in parallel
or whatever? Or should a client blindly load these h-factor elements?

How would one differentiate an h-factor that should be loaded only for a
optional affordance vs. auto-loaded regardless?

That is, if something should always be embedded, how would one determine
what should be specified for auto-loading by the client?

Mark


On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 8:21 AM, mike amundsen <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> right, this aims directly at that H-Factors.
>
>
> mamund
> +1.859.757.1449
> skype: mca.amundsen
> http://amundsen.com/blog/
> http://twitter.com/mamund
> https://github.com/mamund
> http://linkedin.com/in/mamund
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Glenn Block <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Thanks for clarifying. So this relates to what are outbound and inbound links
>> in HFactors?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 27, 2014, mike amundsen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Yep - Matt's got it.
>>>
>>> these are equivalent:
>>>
>>> <data url="..." rel="logo" transclude="true" />
>>>  and
>>> <img src="..." rel="logo" />
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> mamund
>>> +1.859.757.1449
>>> skype: mca.amundsen
>>> http://amundsen.com/blog/
>>> http://twitter.com/mamund
>>> https://github.com/mamund
>>> http://linkedin.com/in/mamund
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Matt McClure <[email protected]
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Glenn,
>>>
>>> I'll let Mike correct me if I'm wrong but I believe transclusion is
>>> analogous to the behavior of an <img> or <iframe> element in HTML. It's
>>> telling the client to fetch the transcluded resource, just including it by
>>> reference instead of by value.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://matthewlmcclure.com
>>>
>>> On Feb 27, 2014, at 2:04 AM, Glenn Block <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Mike
>>>
>>> Cool to see this. I am looking over the format. I can see there's some
>>> CJ footprints there ;-)
>>>
>>> Question on transclude. What do you mean when you say that if it is true
>>> it should be embedded in the current document, do you mean it is already
>>> present inline?
>>>
>>> I am asking in reference to this example:
>>>
>>>               {
>>>                 "name" : "person",
>>>                 "rel" : "item",
>>>                 "url" : "http://example.org/people/1",
>>>                 "data" :
>>>                 [
>>>                   {"name" : "givenName", "value" : "Mike"},
>>>                   {"name" : "familyName", "value" : "Amundsen"},
>>>                   {"name" : "email", "value" : "[email protected]"},
>>>                   {"name" : "avatarUrl", "transclude" : "true", "value" : "http://example.org/avatars/1"}
>>>                 ]
>>>               },
>>>
>>>
>>> Above, transclude is true. Where is the embedding / how does it play in?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Glenn
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:25 PM, mike amundsen <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> yep - you got it right.
>>>
>>> i might add some prose that sets expectations on which level of support
>>> for RFC6570 is needed in order to be uber-compliant. that might lower the
>>> bar for implementation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> mamund
>>> +1.859.757.1449
>>> skype: mca.amundsen
>>> http://amundsen.com/blog/
>>> http://twitter.com/mamund
>>> https://github.com/mamund
>>> http://linkedin.com/in/mamund
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Alexander Johannesen <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hiya,
>>>
>>> > as for the use of @model. this is applied to the associated @url in
>>> the same <data> element. That means you have full control over how much is
>>> in the @model and how much is in the @url. That includes path segements,
>>> etc. just as outlined in RFC6570.
>>> >
>>> > Does this clarify things?
>>>
>>>
>>> Only where RFC6570 is clear. :) I guess I'm responding to the examples
>>> from the website where for example we've got ;
>>>
>>> <data name="search" rel="search" url=" <http://example.org/search>
>>>
>>>
>  
>