Re: WebID 1.0 Editors Draft

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 19:06, Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

IMO you are a credible editor, so +1 from me

More a question of whether you have time to spare.  That is the thing that
has prevented WebID moving forward for 7+ years.


>
> > 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.