Manu, on behalf of the RDF WG, requests WebApps review the API portion
of the
JSON-LD 1.0 Algorithms and API LCWD specification [LC]. I presume this
means Section 11
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-json-ld-api-20130411/#the-application-programming-interface
(Manu, if this isn't correct, please
On 4/17/13 11:53 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Henry S. Thompson h...@inf.ed.ac.uk wrote:
Is there some survey of usage that helped inform your
choice of properties to drop? Are there particular minutes of telcons
or f2f meetings where this issue was
On 15/04/13 12:50, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
So I guess the current solution is fine as longs as either
* No JS libraries will want to implement APIs that uses locks, or
* Such libraries are ok with not using the built-in Future API and
instead re-implementing the Future API themselves.
The
Hi Jonas,
Thanks for this I feel this is heading somewhere, finally! I still need
to work on submitting my full feedback, but I'd like to mention this: Why
did nobody so far in this thread include real world use cases?
For a highly complex topic like this in particular, I would think that
On 4/18/13 12:19 PM, ext Paul Bakaus wrote:
Do you have a list collected somewhere?
Hi Paul,
FYI, you might be able to scrape some UCs from the related workshop
papers http://www.w3.org/2011/web-apps-ws/Papers.
Virginie's paper includes a few (security-related) UCs
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 19:19:17 +0300, Paul Bakaus pbak...@zynga.com wrote:
Hi Jonas,
Thanks for this I feel this is heading somewhere, finally! I still need
to work on submitting my full feedback, but I'd like to mention this: Why
did nobody so far in this thread include real world use cases?
