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

I would be in favor of having JSON-LD as the default be a requested change
to discuss early in the LDP-Next work.  I (personally) don't think it
blocks the WAWG protocol work, as we have only minimal implementation
experience to date and sufficient overlap between WAWG and LDPWG to have
engaged and productive discussions, such as currently :)  As noted, the two
are not incompatible.

I agree with Arnaud that it's not a technical error -- it's completely
implementable and in some circles it would be the appropriate choice.

I would propose that Doug's additional question be discussed separately,
initially in the WAWG list and then once there is clarity there, having
further joint discussions.

Rob


On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 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
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305