W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-socialweb@w3.org > May 2015

Re: I-JSON now RFC

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 08:08:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbdGES-zETbqncn2w4Dfb2KbwdFZGx4VyZ+z1pnwhKcN9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Cc: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
Agreed. Getting the JSON-LD tooling updated would be the ideal approach.

https://github.com/digitalbazaar/jsonld.js


On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 05/19/2015 04:47 PM, James M Snell wrote:
>> That could be difficult for implementers using existing json-ld stacks.
>
> Given existing JSON-LD stacks are still not widely deployed, maybe it
> would be a good idea to revise that toolset to be consistent with I-JSON?
>
> It seems like the right long-term bet, but I'm not sure what the
> resourcing level is in current JSON-LD implementations to revise, but I
> don't see anything in I-JSON that would break JSON-LD off the top of my
> head at a quick glance.
>
>> 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 15:09:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:17 UTC