- From: Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2023 14:43:06 +0200
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
> I'm very reluctant to get into the use case of low power devices, because it could derail the whole conversation. It should be evident to people on this list, that contexts can be inlined too though. I agree, we can move this specific topic to a different conversation should we feel like delving further into it. As a general and personal point, though, I think that good specs often have the quality of limiting if not eliminating the additional constraints that often need to be laid on top them in support of their adoption. > That would depend on the editors time and availability. The CG can help, but we need someone to get it over the line. Personally, I would not be comfortable in working on the spec itself. I believe the spec has too many readability / structural issues that I would want to address if I were to produce something as its editor. But, I would be happy to work on a separate document illustrating where we stand. > It has to be a two step process. First we have to agree we want to add JSON-LD. Then we have to create the appropriate text and examples. > > Most of the w3c linked data stack has moved to JSON-LD now. By 2025 everyone will be using JSON. > > What is generally done is that examples are put in the spec, and developers use that as copy and paste. > > The SHOULD/MUST is a separate topic. Last time we voted on it. I think most could live with either wording, or a variation on it. @Henry, if I were to do this would you be willing to help with calling a few votes?
Received on Wednesday, 5 July 2023 12:43:25 UTC