- From: elf Pavlik <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 20:14:19 +0200
- To: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
forwarding in case some of use don't subscribe to public-socialweb-comments@w3.org i recommend everyone subscribing to public comments! BTW Michael contributes (possibly maintains) Friendica :) -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Unnecessarily complicate definition? Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:09:16 +0000 Resent-From: public-socialweb-comments@w3.org Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:08:49 +0200 From: Michael Vogel <heluecht@pirati.ca> To: public-socialweb-comments@w3.org Hi! I just had a look at http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/ Normally I really like JSON. But when I see the examples, then I think that someone tried to make the worst out of the both worlds "JSON" and "XML". With a structure like this you may have to implement some kind of "JQuery for JSON" to fetch the relevant data. Data with only a single language could be written this way: { "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", "@type": "Object", "displayNameMap": { "en": "This is the title", } } Or that way: { "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", "@type": "Object", "displayName": "This is the title" } Or even that way: { "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", "@type": "Object", "displayName": { "@value": "This is the title", "@language": "en" } } And maybe there is some other way possible as well. That really means that you need a parser that queries all these variants. That really makes the things complicate. I really would suggest a single definition. Flexibility maybe nice when defining this stuff. But it is a nightmare in the implementation. Michael
Received on Friday, 23 October 2015 18:14:26 UTC