Tom Crane

(with @irv and @stephenwf) Ran into a potential issue with the probe service proposal as presented in this manifest - https://iiifauth.digtest.co.uk/manifest/22_av_stars Ignore the pre-Presentation 3 JSON, the main point is...

Coming back to the above comment: I think the problem goes away if the probe service is on the resource itself, alongside the cookie service (renamed access service in Auth...

For Auth 2, the presence of these fields in the examples is now confined to the `interactive` profile example. Further, in https://github.com/IIIF/api/commit/b0e1101b64a7c5cb0de0e14316b9857191cdf0da, text has been added to the table to...

Included in https://github.com/IIIF/api/pull/2127

Is it just `description`?

Should Auth 2.0 provide a different way of providing the `service`? Something else in the resource model? Or is that going to confuse even more?

Editorial clarity in next version - don't extend the model. Keep this in mind while looking at other options for Auth 2, but if this is the simplest then keep...

https://github.com/IIIF/api/commit/5cb7d246f96d6e18953008ae17c33e382865b78f and subsequent commits introduce and refine the idea of a `location` property in the probe service as the mechanism for pointing a client to the URI of a resource...

Seems like we would address these as a matter of course in Auth 2.0 (whatever the outcome of #1959). OK to have a JSON-LD language map in the token?

Discussed on Auth call We don't see a problem with having a language map in the token. Or the token being a JSON-LD 1.1 resource. But turning this around -...