On 14 October 2015 at 12:39, Wes Turner <wes.tur...@gmail.com> wrote: > .... > (.cfg | .yml) > JSONLD > > Should these build settings all be included in e.g. PEP 426 + JSONLD > metadata.jsonld? > - for backward compat, there would then be both metadata.json and > metadata.jsonld (because of normative JSONLD form and PEP 426+)
I'm sorry, I have literally no idea what you're talking about. I know you have a thing about JSONLD, but I don't understand how or why it is relevant to these design discussions, which are 99% fine tuning backwards/forwards compat needs around the existing Python code thats out there and will be interacting with what we produce. If you want to shift the needle here and get discussions talking about things with JSONLD rather than PEP-426 (or some future leaner and less enterprisy version) ... then for me at least, I need more clear communication, less assumption that I have *any* overlap with where you're coming from, and at least some connection to the problems we're working on in your mails. > .cfg (ConfigParse): (section, key, value) > > .yml (YAML lib xyz): easily maps to JSONLD (which always maps to an RDF > triple graph (of linked typed packages with attributes, generated from > [...])) Still not following. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
