Thank you for looping me in.
It's probably worth mentioning that some proposed features for JSON-LD 1.1
may actually help us to keep JSON-LD *out* of the Web of Things
specifications, or at least make it an optional mechanism for adding
semantic annotations to an otherwise plain JSON serialisation
On 4/29/18 10:42 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018, 19:35 L. David Baron wrote:
>
>> OK, here's a draft of an explicit abtension that I can submit later
>> today. Does this seem reasonable?
>>
>
> This looks good to me. Thank you.
+1
We might want to also check in with folks who
On Sun, Apr 29, 2018, 19:35 L. David Baron wrote:
> OK, here's a draft of an explicit abtension that I can submit later
> today. Does this seem reasonable?
>
This looks good to me. Thank you.
>
> One concern that we've had over the past few years about JSON-LD
> is that some people have been
This looks good and clearly covers all the concerns we discussed. Thanks
for writing this up.
If possible let’s make our answers public on this so we may more easily
cite them in other discussions. This isn’t the last we’ve seen of the quiet
attempts to JSON-LDify the web platform.
-Tantek
On Su
OK, here's a draft of an explicit abtension that I can submit later
today. Does this seem reasonable?
One concern that we've had over the past few years about JSON-LD
is that some people have been advocating that formats adopt
JSON-LD semantics, but at the same time allow processing as
regular J
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 4/27/18 2:02 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>>
>> On Friday 2018-04-27 10:07 +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>>
>>> For this reason, I think we should resist introducing dependencies on
>>> JSON-LD in formats and APIs that are relevant to the Web Pla
On Friday 2018-04-27 16:09 -0500, Adam Roach wrote:
> If there's a set of behaviors defined by the 1.0 spec, and a different set
> of behaviors implemented, deployed, and evangelized, I think it would be
> reasonable to object (on that basis) to a charter that does not explicitly
> include work ite
On 4/27/18 2:02 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Friday 2018-04-27 10:07 +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote:
For this reason, I think we should resist introducing dependencies on
JSON-LD in formats and APIs that are relevant to the Web Platform. I
think it follows that we should not support this charter. I
On Friday 2018-04-27 10:07 +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> For this reason, I think we should resist introducing dependencies on
> JSON-LD in formats and APIs that are relevant to the Web Platform. I
> think it follows that we should not support this charter. I expect
> this charter to pass in any ca
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:04 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> The W3C is proposing a charter for:
>
> JSON-LD Working Group
> https://www.w3.org/2018/03/jsonld-wg-charter.html
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Mar/0004.html
>
> Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments
The W3C is proposing a charter for:
JSON-LD Working Group
https://www.w3.org/2018/03/jsonld-wg-charter.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Mar/0004.html
Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
Sunday, April 29. (Sorry for failing to send
11 matches
Mail list logo