- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 13:02:22 +0200
- To: <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On Friday, October 04, 2013 12:48 PM, Simon Grant > Thanks for your explanation, Markus. I agree that the spec is > technically clear on the point, if you read it all. My point was > just about helpfulness to someone who has not yet digested the > whole text. You are right we should do something about this. > I write from the point of view of a fan of the idea > of JSON-LD -- I would like to use it as one binding for InLOC [1]. Cool! > To me (and possibly others) it would be helpful either > (a) to put a note in section 5.4 in any case -- not talking about > type coercion, but simply noting that @type arrays cannot be used > within @context (you don't have to say why at that point), or What about adding a statement saying that using @type in the context cannot be sued to specify the node's type but is used for type coercing values? I think that would also address the overloading issue. > (b) to dis-overload (?) @type, so that within @context there is > "@valuetype" or something, with @type reserved for nodes outside > the context. I don't like that because it introduces other problems (people have to remember one more keyword, need to know when to use which, etc.) > But if people reckon I am in an insignificant minority of people > who would be helped by this, fine... No, you are definitely not. I just tried to understand what exactly caused the confusion. Thanks for reporting it btw. :-) -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 11:02:54 UTC