- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:14:39 +0100
- To: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
- Cc: Alexandre Passant <alex@seevl.net>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 26 Aug 2011, at 12:02, Thomas Steiner wrote: > 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. This presumes that many developers cannot change the payload but can change the headers. I'm not convinced that this is the case. > I'm not fighting over this, simply thought it might be a nice addition > to the spec. “Nice” is when you *remove* something from the spec ;-) > If people think it's stupid, fair enough ;-) I don't think it's stupid at all. It's too clever to work well in practice! Richard > 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 11:15:17 UTC