- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:22:57 +0200
- To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKcCxyB1FXUtbtr+si-CV4b12UOqNFK4PpJ9digS1jP+w@mail.gmail.com>
A case for JSON LD here? Or perhaps JSON LD Macros will allow the best of both worlds? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Blaine Cook <romeda@gmail.com> Date: 22 April 2012 23:15 Subject: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #2: JSON format To: apps-discuss@ietf.org As a follow on to Issue #1, we also need to know the specific format to be used to describe the discovery metadata. I think [in the unlikely event we choose XML-only] the XML format is easy: XRD is a good format, one that had lots of attention and is truly about as simple as we'll ever see (i.e., it's effectively a subset of HTML <head> tags). However, in the more likely event that we choose XML+JSON or JSON-only, we'll need to decide on a format. Webfinger uses JRD, while SWD uses a JSON response with a single key, "locations", that points to an array of locations where the service is available. Given that (it seems) we want to be able to provide multiple services per request versus SWD's single service per request, JRD is a likely candidate. Are there other response formats we should be considering? Is there already implicit consensus on using JRD? b. _______________________________________________ apps-discuss mailing list apps-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
Received on Sunday, 22 April 2012 21:23:26 UTC