- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:07:40 -0400
- To: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
- Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>, "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>
Hi Frederick, That works for me. Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood > On Jun 11, 2015, at 15:44, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com> wrote: > > I take this as support for filing an errata item on LDP to make the default SHOULD be JSON-LD when no Accept specified. > > regards, Frederick > > Frederick Hirsch > Co-Chair, W3C Web Annotation WG > > www.fjhirsch.com > @fjhirsch > >> On Jun 11, 2015, at 1:58 PM, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote: >> >> Mark (Hi, Mark!) is correct; interrelated specs invariably become a morass. If you want to prove it, try to trace through HTTP, URI, etc, to figure out which characters are allowed in an HTTP URL. Kudos to anyone who can do it in within a single day. >> >> Of course we should be as clean as possible. Just don’t insist upon perfection. >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> -- >> http://about.me/david_wood >> >> >> >>> On Jun 11, 2015, at 01:14, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote: >>> >>> This reminds me of that time when we had to revise HTTP to support GIF89a in addition to HTML. And then the CSS update, oy! Don't get me started on JPG! >>> >>> No, of course that never actually happened, because that would be silly :P >> >
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2015 20:08:10 UTC