- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:58:40 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
> @iherman No worries regarding "spaghetti". I didn't think you were being dismissive but IIRC these discussions are public (and/or the archives are public, I forget which it is) > both:-) > so I wanted to clarify for the "audience." On the whole we should all probably watch out for pejorative terms (and I'm certainly as guilty of using them as anyone). > > Regarding "@type". For the examples I merely repeated Hugo's verbage. IMO, it's probably very safe to replace "@type" with "type" as Rob has done in the proposed example. (IIRC we have already had this debate elsewhere and I thought that it was settled that we were making the substitution, thus the use of "type" in the proposed solution.) Perhaps @hugomanguinhas could say if my understanding also matches his regarding "@type"/"type". > In fact, my issue was not whether we use type or @type (I am not sure any more which approach we have adopted); I questioned whether the type information is necessary at all. But I don't want to reopen this discussion. However, a fair comparison of the two extracts requires either to use them everywhere in both examples, or none of them in both... > — > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub. > -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/93#issuecomment-173993135 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 22 January 2016 17:58:42 UTC