- From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:56:50 +0100
- To: Ben Werdmüller <ben@withknown.com>, Dave Wilkinson <wilkie@xomb.org>
- CC: Matthew Marum <vp-projects@opensocial.org>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
On 12/04/2014 01:21 PM, Ben Werdmüller wrote:
>
> We've been considering various options for this in Known. I strongly
> disagree with using Markdown or similar syntax for human-readable
> content, because that creates a burden to support a wholly different
> notation in applications that are almost certainly web-based at some
> level. I do think HTML with embedded microformats / microdata is the
> most flexible option for this scenario. (It also doesn't tie
> applications into Twitter-style @-syntax - there's no need to let them
> dictate the convention.)
I see no necessity to mandate details for the actual content, we can
use different datatypes to provide multiple versions:
{
"@context": ...
"@id": "/some-post",
"@type": "BlogPosting",
"text" [
"i provide plain text, Markdown and HTML",
{ "@value": "i provide plain text,
[Markdown](http://commonmark.org/) and
[HTML](http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/)", "@type": "http://commonmark.org/" },
{ "@value": "i provide plain text, <a
href='http://commonmark.org/'>Markdown</a> and <a
href='http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/'>HTML</a>", "@type":
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/"
]
}
I can see Markdown data type recommended by AKSW for site:content
http://aksw.org/Projects/AKSWorg/Documentation.html
Received on Friday, 5 December 2014 13:59:02 UTC