W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > January 2012

RE: json-ld.org playground updated

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:25:49 +0800
To: <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01bc01ccd9d2$88bbf280$9a33d780$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
I've created ISSUE-64 to keep track of this.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Kellogg [mailto:gregg@kellogg-assoc.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 8:07 PM
> To: Markus Lanthaler
> Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org
> Subject: Re: json-ld.org playground updated
> 
> On Jan 21, 2012, at 11:55 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> 
> >> IMO, {"@literal": "foo"} means that there is no language, using
> >> {"@literal": "foo", "@language": null} seems excessively verbose,
> and
> >> null is not needed anywhere else. The @language in the context
> applies
> >> to plain strings.
> >
> > Would that then in your opinion also mean that, e.g., all type
> coercions for
> > that property are ignored? I'm not a big fan of these kinds of
> "magic".
> > Setting it specifically to null would describe in a crystal clear way
> what
> > an author intends to do and everyone would IMO understand what it
> means
> > without reading the spec.
> 
> I think we should make it clear that type, and language coercions
> operate on plain strings only; {@literal} and {@id} are explicit object
> of statements, and coercion is not needed. We should make clear that
> @language and @type coercions operate only on plain string operands (or
> arrays/lists of objects represented as plain strings). I don't see this
> as magic at all.
> 
> Gregg
> 
> > --
> > Markus Lanthaler
> > @markuslanthaler
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 13:26:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:36 GMT