- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 08:21:08 -0700
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: > Looking forward to the possibility of using form-encoding in the API, > maybe it would be useful to de-namespace all stable microformats - which > TimBL and the W3C agreed it was OK to normatively reference in W3C specs > - and put them in the ActivityStreams Vocabulary? > > Does that make sense? > > Then, rather than vCard, we'd also just have hCard/vCard (although a > quick double-check to make sure they line-up 100% is in order. > It's not clear at all what this means actually. Example? - James > cheers, > harry > > > > > On 04/23/2015 06:45 PM, James M Snell wrote: >> Yes that's exactly the plan. The jsonld context would do the heavy lifting >> here. >> On Apr 23, 2015 9:44 AM, "hhalpin" <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> On 2015-04-23 06:53, Renato Iannella wrote: >>> >>>> On 23 Apr 2015, at 1:41 am, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> While this is helpful, the use of the namespace prefix is irritating. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why is it irritating? >>>> >>> >>> My guess is some developers - particularly those who aren't using RDF >>> somewhere mentally - don't like using namespaces, and often accidently >>> leave them out. I know I've seen that in some usages of FOAF by non-RDF >>> aware developers in the past. >>> >>> Would there be a way of sorting this out in the JSON-LD context, so that >>> RDF-aware processors could properly namespace the vCard vocabulary usage >>> while your ordinary JSON developer on the street would just process without >>> namespaces (since they wouldn't be resolving them to begin with)? >>> >>> >>>> Cheers... >>>> Renato Iannella >>>> Semantic Identity >>>> http://semanticidentity.com >>>> Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206 >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Harry Halpin (W3C/MIT) harry@w3.org >>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 15:21:59 UTC