- From: Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk>
- Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2023 18:47:25 +0100
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-solid@w3.org
- Message-ID: <169886084549.1434049.2927186518121325178@auryn.jones.dk>
Quoting Melvin Carvalho (2023-11-01 18:19:22) > Jonas, if we were to agree that a Solid Lite spec should have as few MUSTs > as possible (without, at this point, making a specific choice). But that > it could have as many SHOULDs or MAYs as people wanted, do you think that > would be a reasonable basis on which to proceed? Certainly. Personally, what I find sensible is to... * require RDF/* (i.e. any serialization) * recommend JSON-LD, and to only suggest RDF/Turtle * recommend content-negotiation Yes, this means not all user agents can expect to have succesful conversations with all servers, even if they all comply with solid-lite. I see the lack of quaranteed succesful conversation as a tradeoff for a lite spec. Only recommending content-negotiation is to me similar to travelling in foreign countries: If you learn some addon languages (equip yourself with the capability of content-negotiation) then you raise your chances of being able to communicate with those you meet, but there is never a guarantee, because the others may not have done the same, and even if they have you might end in a "succesful" zero-solution negotiation if there was no common match. Yes, in an ideal world we all have eyes and all speak danish, and we would have no need for content-negotiation. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2023 17:47:44 UTC