- From: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:02:42 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Alexandre Passant <alex@seevl.net>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi again, > As I said, using the Link HTTP header brings no advantage over embedding the link in the representation. The processing of rel="@context" is specific to JSON-LD anyways, so why not include the link in the JSON-LD payload. Just to clarify, I was not suggesting to remove the other options of inlining the @context, adding the @context link directly in the payload. I was suggesting the Link header as an additional means to add @context. All arguments against Link headers fully qualify, and yes, I am aware that not everyone has the power on their Web servers to set those. I can see one huge advantage, though: it can in my opinion improve adoption of JSON-LD, as the actual payload on many "legacy" JSON providers does not have to change at all, they could simply transparently add the Link header with their @context. I'm not fighting over this, simply thought it might be a nice addition to the spec. If people think it's stupid, fair enough ;-) Maybe we can quickly discuss it on the JSON-LD call/list. I'll start a short thread. Best, Tom -- Thomas Steiner, Research Scientist, Google Inc. http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac
Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 11:03:26 UTC