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

Re: I-JSON now RFC

From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 10:30:38 +0200
Message-ID: <5562DDAE.5010504@wwelves.org>
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

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.
Received on Monday, 25 May 2015 08:30:47 UTC

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