- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 05:10:52 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
> On 10 Jul 2015, at 23:32 , Rob Sanderson <notifications@github.com> wrote: > > ideally, we should have defined everything in terms of pure JSON, so that people only dealing with JSON could read the spec and never even read about the RDF view. and then a separate spec could tell those interested in an RDF view of everything how to do this robustly on top of the JSON. > > This would argue in favor of splitting Model and Serialization into two separate documents. Serialization could then focus exclusively on the JSON format, with reference to the model. > > However it does not affect protocol, as we inherit the MUST from LDP of support for the turtle syntax, and thus RDF. > > the extra load on Annotation Servers is minimal, but purely JSON clients would not have to actively disregard the @context property from the returned data > > I don't follow the logic here. By adding a real implementation requirement to the server, we prevent the client from having to ignore something that it's clearly going to ignore anyway, and indeed required to ignore by the relevant specifications? Do not understand this last point. If the returned JSON payload does not include `@context`, it is easier on pure JSON based implementations, while JSON-LD implementations go on unchanged because they get the `@context` through the header. I do not think it is the same Ivan > > — > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub. > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 -- GitHub Notif of comment by iherman See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/52#issuecomment-120573371
Received on Saturday, 11 July 2015 05:10:54 UTC