- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:06:41 -0500
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- CC: "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On Jan 21, 2012, at 11:55 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> IMO, {"@literal": "foo"} means that there is no language, using
>> {"@literal": "foo", "@language": null} seems excessively verbose, and
>> null is not needed anywhere else. The @language in the context applies
>> to plain strings.
>
> Would that then in your opinion also mean that, e.g., all type coercions for
> that property are ignored? I'm not a big fan of these kinds of "magic".
> Setting it specifically to null would describe in a crystal clear way what
> an author intends to do and everyone would IMO understand what it means
> without reading the spec.
I think we should make it clear that type, and language coercions operate on plain strings only; {@literal} and {@id} are explicit object of statements, and coercion is not needed. We should make clear that @language and @type coercions operate only on plain string operands (or arrays/lists of objects represented as plain strings). I don't see this as magic at all.
Gregg
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 22 January 2012 12:09:21 UTC