- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:42:24 +0100
- To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
- CC: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
hello elf. On 2015-03-25 10:21, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote: > IMO we really better focus in WG on other issues, one very relevant here > ISSUE-16: better separate grammar/vocabulary and improved spec structure > https://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/16 of course i have to pitch in here because that was my proposal a little while ago. i think it's clear that AS2 needs to be open and needs a solid model for extensibility. what AS1 called the "base schema" simply should be the first and w3c-blessed extension that implementations should support. in my mind, AS1 had a better structure because the spec itself had a very basic set (mostly the basic AS grammar) of verbs and object types and properties, and then the base schema extended this in a separate spec. if we want to be extensible i think we should eat our own dogfood and do what AS1 did: separate AS grammar and vocabulary, and treat the "base vocabulary" as an extension. not only would we validate our own extensibility model, we would also create a blueprint for those who want to create their own extensions. btw, for those interested in declarative extensibility: i just finished the ASDL experiment of converting the AS1 base schema into a structured list, and our general approach is to treat this no different than any other possible extension of the AS1 core. here's ASDL's current playground, but please keep in mind that this is all about AS1: https://github.com/dret/ASDL/tree/master/0.1 cheers, dret. -- erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu - tel:+1-510-2061079 | | UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) | | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 09:42:59 UTC