- From: Rob Sanderson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:23:39 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
We should definitely be consistent between SvgSelector and CssStyle,
that's definitely a bug regardless of the outcome of this discussion.
It seems the same as a textual body to me as well, from a protocol
perspective. I can either retrieve the body/stylesheet/svg by
dereferencing the IRI supplied in `id`, or I can use the content
provided in the graph. If all three are consistent, then I'm happy...
so ...
To extend your proposal, can we drop everything down to using the more
generic `value` and get rid of `text`, `TextualBody` and `Content`
completely?
e.g. as above, plus change this:
```
{
"type": "Annotation",
"body": {
"type": "TextualBody", // oa:TextualBody
"format": "text/plain",
"text": "I love this page!" // oa:text
},
"target": "http://example.com/index.html"
}
```
to:
```
{
"type": "Annotation",
"body": {
"type": "Text", //dcmitypes:Text
"format": "text/plain",
"value": "I love this page!" // rdf:value
},
"target": "http://example.com/index.html"
}
```
--
GitHub Notification of comment by azaroth42
Please view or discuss this issue at
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/191#issuecomment-202470464
using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 28 March 2016 16:23:41 UTC