- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 20:41:58 -0400
- To: public-credentials@w3.org
On 06/18/2016 09:12 PM, Timothy Holborn wrote: > I'd like to note that if we were able to provide scope for other RDF > Serialization Formats without undue negative impacts; we might > reduce pain-points (whilst potentially introducing others). > > Think mandatory json-ld optional Turtle, etc. --> might be another > way of doing it. I'm concerned that if we bring up anything that doesn't at least look like JSON that we're going to come under attack from those at W3C that have a serious bone to pick w/ Linked Data. > serialization seems a bit like religion at times. Yes, which is why we're picking the most popular religions today - WebIDL (browsers), JSON (just about everyone), JSON-LD (the Linked Data crowd). If we were to throw TURTLE in there, the response from the browser companies will most likely come in the form of formal objections. To be fair, no one has said that TURTLE is a priority for them wrt. Verifiable Claims. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. JSON-LD Best Practice: Context Caching https://manu.sporny.org/2016/json-ld-context-caching/
Received on Monday, 20 June 2016 00:42:24 UTC