Fwd: Re: I-JSON now RFC

Hi,

Can anyone see any possible issues with requiring I-JSON while building
around JSON-LD?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7493

Cheers!

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: I-JSON now RFC
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 15:06:18 +0000
Resent-From: public-socialweb@w3.org
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 17:06:10 +0200
From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
To: public-socialweb@w3.org



On 05/19/2015 04:47 PM, James M Snell wrote:
> That could be difficult for implementers using existing json-ld stacks.

Given existing JSON-LD stacks are still not widely deployed, maybe it
would be a good idea to revise that toolset to be consistent with I-JSON?

It seems like the right long-term bet, but I'm not sure what the
resourcing level is in current JSON-LD implementations to revise, but I
don't see anything in I-JSON that would break JSON-LD off the top of my
head at a quick glance.

> On May 19, 2015 7:31 AM, "☮ elf Pavlik ☮" <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 03/23/2015 09:40 AM, Erik Wilde wrote:
>>> hello.
>>>
>>> fyi, there just was a new RFC for JSON. it is called I-JSON and is meant
>>> to be a more restricted subset of JSON ruling out some of the more
>>> obscure things that are legal in JSON, but may lead to strange behavior
>>> and inconsistent interpretation across implementations.
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7493
>>>
>>> if we go the plain JSON route, we could say something similar to the
>>> idea of postel's law: AS producers should only produce I-JSON, but they
>>> should be prepared to consume unrestricted JSON.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> dret.
>>>
>> sounds reasonable to me, recommend it in AS2.0 spec as well as for
>> Social API!
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2015 15:19:49 UTC