Re: CfC: Resolution Annotation Protocol to make JSON-LD default returned if no HTTP Accept request header (deadline 24 June 2015)

I'm sorry but  I just don't see how this can be painted as an errata and 
and this would change compliance. We may regret that JSON-LD isn't the 
default instead of Turtle but that's how it is and it's not an error.

When we started with LDP and adopted Turtle as the default over RDF/XML 
this was seen as a hugely progressive move. At the time there was no 
JSON-LD to talk about. As JSON-LD surfaced and become more popular we 
progressively added in as much support as we could for JSON-LD but by the 
time people felt it should be the default it was just way too late to make 
the change.

That's just how it is.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group


David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote on 06/11/2015 01:07:40 PM:

> From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
> 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>
> Date: 06/11/2015 01:08 PM
> Subject: Re: CfC: Resolution Annotation Protocol to make JSON-LD 
> default  returned if no HTTP Accept request header (deadline 24 June 
2015)
> 
> 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
> >> 
> > 
> 
>