- From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:15:33 -0500
- To: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com>, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- CC: "public-rdfjs@w3.org" <public-rdfjs@w3.org>, "David I. Lehn" <dil@lehn.org>
On 01/29/2014 09:22 AM, Matteo Collina wrote: > > > > 2014-01-29 ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org > <mailto:perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>> > > Matteo Collina and I work on one of them LevelGraph-JSONLD, I don't > know if anyone else maintaining packages listed above participates > in this group. David and Dave also work on payswarm. > > > You work there most than me :). I take credit of the original idea, but > you are taking it to its full potential. > > > If someone already uses or plans to use jsonld.js as dependency I > would consider it a good time to jump in and participate in possible > changes to this library. > > Currently I think about proposing something like moving current > functionality, which includes RDFa and HTTP Signatures to something > like jsonld-tools (just making up name now) which would depend on > much smaller jsonld.js (npm: jsonld) focused only on implementing > logic in json-ld and json-ld-api specs (+framing). At this moment I > also have impression that some payswarm specific requirements might > have ended up in jsonld.js (/me speculating) > > > An easier solution is to leave jsonld.js with the full functionality and > extract the 'core' to a jsonld-core library that does not include RDFa > and HTTP signatures. Worse naming, but no upgrade issues. It might > simplify the release of such an update. I think adding a "jsonld-core" library is messy and, in the end, will be confusing. So I'd rather see the extras moved out into their own lib. Once they are moved out, we can bump the npm version to indicate to dependencies that there have been backwards-incompatible changes. > > Cheers, > > Matteo > -- Dave Longley CTO Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2014 21:16:00 UTC