You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Given that one of the original ideas was to allow extensions parameters to be defined within core OCFL JSON files, but this is no longer allowed, is there still a need for the OCFL Extension repository to officially define extension parameterization?
If extensions are parameterized, then they must store the parameters in an extension file. The nature of this file could really be entirely up to the extension to define. I don't necessarily have a problem with the extension spec defining parameterization, but it does seem perhaps unnecessary now.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Discussed during 2020-08-18 editors meeting. The downside of retaining the current parameter specification is presently unclear. Decided to let extension definitions to emerge, and determine based on practice whether parameters are useful as currently defined.
Given that one of the original ideas was to allow extensions parameters to be defined within core OCFL JSON files, but this is no longer allowed, is there still a need for the OCFL Extension repository to officially define extension parameterization?
If extensions are parameterized, then they must store the parameters in an extension file. The nature of this file could really be entirely up to the extension to define. I don't necessarily have a problem with the extension spec defining parameterization, but it does seem perhaps unnecessary now.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: