Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

clarify wording of search link rel requirement #267

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 5, 2022

Conversation

philvarner
Copy link
Collaborator

Related Issue(s):

Proposed Changes:

  1. update language around search link rel

PR Checklist:

  • This PR is made against the dev branch (all proposed changes except releases should be against dev, not master).
  • This PR has no breaking changes.
  • This PR does not make any changes to the core spec in the stac-spec directory (these are included as a subtree and should be updated directly in radiantearth/stac-spec)
  • I have added my changes to the CHANGELOG or a CHANGELOG entry is not required.

@@ -55,8 +55,11 @@ The following Link relations shall exist in the Landing Page (root).
| -------- | --------- | ---------------------- | --------------------------- |
| `search` | `/search` | STAC API - Item Search | URI for the Search endpoint |

The `search` link relation shall have a `type` of `application/geo+json` and a `method` of `GET`, and may also
a link with a `method` of `POST` if the server supports it.
This `search` link relation shall have a `type` of `application/geo+json`. If no `method` attribute is
Copy link
Collaborator

@m-mohr m-mohr Mar 3, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe it only SHOULD have it or let's say the default for search could probably be application/geo+json. We do the same with most other links, e.g. child, item, ...

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

And a general observation, but I think we mostly use MUST instead of SHALL in the documentation. Your recent PRs use SHALL and I think we should be more consistent here. Could we try to use MUST instead of SHALL? I just had to look it up again whether SHALL was equal to MUST or SHOULD and found it confusing.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Filed #275 to discuss

@philvarner philvarner merged commit 10636ea into radiantearth:dev Mar 5, 2022
@philvarner philvarner deleted the clarify-search-link-rel branch March 5, 2022 02:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants