Re: In the spec, swap RFC4627 for RFC7159

Hi Markus,

> I've thought about this before myself but am still on the fence on what to
> do. Unfortunately, RFC7159 isn't simply a reclassification of RFC4627 to
> bring it on the standards track but also contains a number of BC-breaking
> changes. For example, it loosens the restriction on top-level constructs (in
> RFC4627 only objects and arrays are allowed, in RFC7159 everything is). I'd
> thus prefer to not make this change at this point.

When you try to "lift" the trivial JSON object 42 (just the integer)
to JSON-LD, you would have to convert it to something that is an
object anyway in order for JSON-LD to make sense (you need a key,
unless I am terribly mistaken). So you are right that allowing
"everything" ("trivial" JSON) seems challenging, but probably not a
problem in practice [citation needed].

> Is there any reason to update the ref apart from "let's use the latest
> stuff"?

This was my main motivation, especially given the challenges around
JSON standardization. Finally, duplicate keys are disallowed, so this
is definitely a good thing. My preference would still be to swap to
the new RFC, but nothing breaks if the spec references the old RFC.

Best,
Tom

-- 
Thomas Steiner, Employee, Google Inc.
http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iFy0uwAntT0bE3xtRa5AfeCheCkthAtTh3reSabiGbl0ck0fjumBl3DCharaCTersAttH3b0ttom.hTtP5://xKcd.c0m/1181/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 6 March 2014 16:14:28 UTC