Re: [w3c/manifest] Identifier for external interpretation (Issue #1104)

> so the whole lot can be fed to a standard JSON-LD parser.

While it's true that JSON-LD has its advantages, as far as I'm aware, current browsers don't support JSON-LD natively. It's an interesting idea, but for it to be feasible, browser support for JSON-LD would need to be considered and possibly implemented.


> Discovery/search should be easier, automatic creation of directory/marketplace listings would be simplified, the data would also be available for immediate use by generic Linked Data tools (akin to DOAP, the RDF Description of a Project spec).

You raise some good points about the potential benefits of JSON-LD. However, in our past discussions and experiments (referenced in issues #266 and #316), we found that JSON-LD introduced some complexities without significantly enhancing our current format's capabilities for these purposes. It's something we can certainly revisit if new information or approaches emerge.

>  But if the header said "image/jpeg", what then?

In that case, the manifest would be considered either rejected or missing, in line with the manifest link relationship defined in the HTML specification. This approach helps maintain consistency and clarity in processing these manifests.

@benfrancis wrote:
> It knows it's a manifest because it was linked to from a web page using a manifest link relation.

Yes, exactly! The manifest link relation in the web page helps eliminate any ambiguity and ensures the manifest is recognized correctly.

Closing as answered. 

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/1104#issuecomment-1819936373
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/manifest/issues/1104/1819936373@github.com>