- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:15:52 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
> On 16 Dec 2015, at 17:05, Doug Schepers <notifications@github.com> wrote: > > I'm not sure we have consensus around using application/ld+json as the MIME type. I'd prefer a specific MIME type (and file extension) for annotations, since we're trying to foster an environment of targeted annotation clients, not just to make something that's processable by generic JSON-LD processors (which this format will be anyway). Couldn't we compromise with something like application/ld+json+anno, so an annotation UA would know that it's an annotation, and it could still be handled by generic JSON-LD processors? > > I guess it should anno+ld+json to go from the most specific to the most general. But, and somebody please correct me if I am wrong (because I would like to be wrong) the media type specifications have only a two level hierarchy. Ie, a generic JSON-LD processor will *not* understand ``../anno+ld+json`` I believe, only ``../ld+json``. A generic JSON processor will understand ``../ld+json`` because JSON-LD is defined as a subtype of JSON. I think we have two, *non-exclusive* possibilities. 1. Add a profile to ``./ld+json``, which is the current proposal, works with generic JSON-LD processors, as well as *JSON-LD* aware Annotation processors. It also works with generic JSON processors. 2. Define a separate media type of the form ``../anno+json``. Generic JSON processors can of course handle that, as well as specific Annotation processors whether they are JSON-LD aware or not. I think the present issue addresses only (1) above, and it is a good thing to have this. That has now been decided. (2) is a separate issue; I will raise it as such on the issue list. Personally, I am undecided whether we want to do (2) or not, but that can be decided later. -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/30#issuecomment-165180831 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 17:15:54 UTC