- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 07:47:16 -0700
- To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Cc: public-socialweb@w3.org, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2015 14:47:44 UTC
That could be difficult for implementers using existing json-ld stacks. On May 19, 2015 7:31 AM, "☮ elf Pavlik ☮" <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote: > On 03/23/2015 09:40 AM, Erik Wilde wrote: > > hello. > > > > fyi, there just was a new RFC for JSON. it is called I-JSON and is meant > > to be a more restricted subset of JSON ruling out some of the more > > obscure things that are legal in JSON, but may lead to strange behavior > > and inconsistent interpretation across implementations. > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7493 > > > > if we go the plain JSON route, we could say something similar to the > > idea of postel's law: AS producers should only produce I-JSON, but they > > should be prepared to consume unrestricted JSON. > > > > cheers, > > > > dret. > > > sounds reasonable to me, recommend it in AS2.0 spec as well as for > Social API! >
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2015 14:47:44 UTC