- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 22:05:28 -0500
- To: public-payments-wg@w3.org
On 02/08/2016 04:33 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote: > It is not appropriate to have a normative reference to material that > is not required for conformance. It's perfectly appropriate to have normative references to material that tells people how to interpret/extend messages using JSON-LD if they want to use JSON-LD. If you're not going to interpret the messages as JSON-LD, you can ignore the normative text. You include text like this in the API specs so people know that they have the option to interpret the data as JSON-LD. > I do not believe we understand the ecosystem well enough to require > JSON-LD. Why do you think we're "requiring JSON-LD"? If you don't have a normative extensibility mechanism, then what's the extensibility mechanism you're proposing? > I support the idea of a standalone specification as a way to build > the conversation around the use of JSON-LD. Is that specification REC-track? Does it contain normative language on how to interpret the messages as JSON-LD? -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Web Payments: The Architect, the Sage, and the Moral Voice https://manu.sporny.org/2015/payments-collaboration/
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2016 03:05:59 UTC