- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 10:46:30 -0500
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: W3C JSON-LD Working Group <public-json-ld-wg@w3.org>
On 2/21/20 5:24 PM, Ivan Herman wrote: > I think that, at this point, we should remove this thing from the > JSON-LD spec and finalize the spec with ld+json. I do not think we > should make the progress towards a Rec stop because of that. Agreed. > Manu, Dave, there is a different discussion to take up on the DID side. > But that should not affect the advancement of JSON-LD Correct, we'll figure it out in the DID WG. We can always state that did+jsonld MUST be processed as if it were ld+json... but push the +json+ld discussion at IETF/IANA... DID WG doesn't need finality on that for a year, so let's push IETF to get to a decision there, because it is the cleaner solution (and we've already done tests to see if it breaks media type libraries and it doesn't seem to). I've opened a new issue in the DID WG and we'll pursue it there: https://github.com/w3c/did-core/issues/208 Thank you to the JSON-LD WG for the consideration and effort! :) We'll pursue this in the DID WG (with, hopefully, the support of the JSON-LD WG -- for as long as their charter allows). -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
Received on Saturday, 22 February 2020 15:46:47 UTC