- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 11:18:59 -0400
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- CC: 'Linked JSON' <public-linked-json@w3.org>, 'RDF WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5194F8E3.3020404@w3.org>
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