- From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 10:30:38 +0200
- To: public-socialweb@w3.org
- CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
On 05/19/2015 05:06 PM, Harry Halpin 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. copy and paste of exchange with one of JSON-LD 1.0 specs authors/editors Markus Lanthaler, to me it sounds reassuring that we can safely require I-JSON! https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/2015May/0012.html <blockquote> On 22 Mai 2015 at 14:16, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote: > On 05/21/2015 10:58 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: >> On 19 Mai 2015 at 21:34, James M Snell wrote: >>> Markus: are the JSON-LD impls already compliant with this then? >> >> They accept all I-JSON-conformant JSON-LD but might emit JSON that doesn't respect >> all of I-JSON's suggestions. Does that answer your question?^ > > When any of JSON-LD 1.0 Processing Algorithms [1] receives as input > I-JSON-conformant JSON-LD, can it return on output JSON which doesn't > respect all of I-JSON' suggestions? Example of such case could come > helpful if you can think of one. No, none of the algorithms will yield a non-I-JSON-conformant result for such input. </blockquote>
Received on Monday, 25 May 2015 08:30:47 UTC