On 05/16/2013 10:42 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > On Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:08 AM, Manu Sporny wrote: > >> Google just added JSON-LD support to Gmail. It was announced at Google >> I/O (thanks to Bob Du Charme for spotting it): > Woohoo! Pretty awesome! > >> They have decided to not use a URL in the '@context'. I'm currently >> trying to find out why they did this. If they did this on purpose, we >> may have to do another LC to accept 'keywords' in the @context field. >> Ideally, we can just ask them to put 'http://' in front of the >> parameter. It's the only place that they deviated from the spec (which >> is actually pretty good). > Just a quick idea because I'm in a hurry.. Perhaps we could also use > WHATWG's URL parsing algorithm > > http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#parsing > > but that would probably mean that relative URLs are not supported anymore > which would be very bad! > > Let's hope they add the http:// Another option -- a little bit odd -- would be to just add "//", so that it's relative to the URI scheme and can be handled as http or https as suits the situation. That is: convince them to use "//schema.org" as the @context instead of just "schema.org". This kind of touches on the blank-node-graph-names topic, in that it comes back to: *what is the base for a message?* And who gets to say? In this case, Google seems to be saying that in email that goes to gmail.com, the base is "http://". Do they have the right to say that, given current specs? I have no idea. (Does "http://schema.org" function as a proper json-ld @context IRI today? If not, I imagine it could, easily enough.) -- Sandro > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > > >Received on Thursday, 16 May 2013 15:19:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:37 UTC