W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Google adds JSON-LD support to Gmail

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 23:35:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKzdkfjWXXv8dNts3YT8cqYzpLcktUgMo5JO109Zu=pDA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, RDF-WG Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 22 May 2013 23:19, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:48 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
> > A couple of points on this:
> > 1. We (Google) can parse this if written @context="http://schema.org"
> > and we'll find a way to document that.
>
> Would it be possible to document that as the preferred way of doing it? I
> think most people just copy and paste that part anyway so it wouldn't
> really matter in my opinion. You can still continue to support "schema.org"
> but suggest people to use "http://schema.org"
>
> What actually worries me much more is that there isn't a context a
> http://schema.org. Even if I do a GET and accept only application/ld+json
> I get back an HTML page. Will that be fixed?
>
>
> > 2. We'd also like to start a conversation about allowing the simpler,
> > shorter form by defaulting to http:// if not present.
>
> We could certainly do that but that would mean that we would lose the
> ability to use relative URLs to reference contexts which I think is very
> handy for a large number of use cases.
>

It may be slightly better to standardize in https, rather than http, since
schema.org is used for ecommerce too.  I dont think there's currently any
known attack vector based on MITM of a vocab, but one may emerge in future.

>
>
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 21:36:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:53:22 UTC