- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 20:41:02 -0400
- To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
- CC: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
On 06/03/2015 12:42 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 03:00 AM, James M Snell wrote:
>> For the record, with my editor's hat on, I'm strongly -1 on adding the
>> Microformats examples back into the document. In fact, I'd like to go
>> a step further and strip out the Microdata and RDFa examples as well,
>> leaving only the JSON-LD and Turtle.
> I would suggest, following guideline on serializations in WG Charter, to
> only include JSON-LD examples and leave possible Turtle, RDFa,
> Microdata, Microformats, RDF/XML to separate WG NOTE(s).
>
> I say that, having big sympathy to Turtle and having written automated
> tests which compare JSON-LD and Turtle examples in core spec.
I love the syntax switching. It really helps me understand what's
going on. But, ... I'm still inclined to agree with you. Just having
JSON (LD) as the only syntax developers see in the primary specs will
probably help adoption.
> Once we change the way examples get pulled in the spec documents, we can
> also easily compile them as separate NOTE(s) or put them back into the
> spec later. Making it also easier to fix all the incorrect ones in
> incremental way, without interfering with editorial changes to the spec.
> This will also make it easier to expose them to
> http://linter.structured-data.org/ , http://json-ld.org/playground/ ,
> http://rdfa.info/play/ , Microformats Playground?
>
Yep, makes sense.
-- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2015 00:41:11 UTC