Re: WebID 1.0 Editors Draft

• From: Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>
• Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 19:06:48 +0100
• To: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
• Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <C25E223F-F563-4870-9187-15B8EB6F5AD3@scazzosi.com>

Hi all,

> In order to get towards a "final output", the group would need to select one
> or more editors, and also someone would need to be willing to edit the spec

> So, if anyone has time to do that, I think it would be welcome!

I haven’t spent enough time around here to be a credible editor but I may be
able to help with the grunt work, if help will be needed at all.

> We could work with small PRs, first proposed to the list, and I can then 
> merge them if we have consensus. Rough consensus and working code as they say
> at the IETF. 

Sounds good for me.

So far, I think there's some convergence on both:

1) JSON-LD, either as the default or one of the supported formats
2) JSON-LD with a context that supports consumption as normal JSON

We're also discussing:

1) having a default serialization format at all and, if so, whether that should
   be a default/MUST or a default/SHOULD
2) whether conneg should be supported or not
3) whether conneg should be mentioned or not

I think that a good starting point would be:

1) a default/SHOULD on JSON-LD with a context that supports consumption as
   normal JSON
2) explicit mention of conneg as something that is orthogonal to the spec and
   that is not explicitly required

Best regards,
Jacopo.

Received on Sunday, 30 January 2022 18:07:05 UTC