- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@hawke.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:12:38 -0400
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, 'Linked JSON' <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 03/10/2014 09:58 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Saturday, March 08, 2014 8:13 PM, David Janes wrote:
>> I've been using JSON-LD for awhile and there's two things I'd
> Cool. Do you have some pointers or could you share how you used JSON-LD?
>
>> like to suggest two ideas for future releases
>>
>> (1) "@job" (like a BLOB in a DB)
>>
>> It would be nice if I could mark part of the JSON-LD as having
>> "no semantic meaning / interpretation" and that it would be passed
>> various functions (compaction, etc) without being touched.
>>
>> The lack of this has made me do some ugly / questionable things...
> We are aware of that shortcoming and have been discussing it several times
> but decided to leave it out of JSON-LD 1.0 due to its algorithmic
> complexity. I've created ISSUE-333 to keep track of this:
>
> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/333
>
>
>> (2) "/" routed IRIs
>>
>> Instead of returning various @base relative IRIs as "../../../x/y/z",
>> it would be nice if there was an option for just getting "/x/y/z".
> Can't you achieve that by simply setting the base to the domain instead of
> some directory? So, http://example.com/ instead of
> http://example.com/a/directory/
I'm not sure what you mean by "setting the base", but whatever the base
is, a relative URI of "/x/y/z" should have exactly the behavior I think
David is asking for, just by the rules of Relative URI resolution.
-- Sandro
>
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 14:13:10 UTC