Re: Observations on WebID definition and specification

po 5. 2. 2024 v 13:53 odesílatel Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org> napsal:

> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 12:36 PM Martynas Jusevičius <
> martynas@atomgraph.com> wrote:
>
>> So my proposal, or at least thought experiment is (which I should
>> probably have brought up earlier): what if we remove the media type
>> requirement altogether?
>
>
> +1 in the strongest possible terms, I strongly object in every
> conceivable way to not doing this.
>
> The old WebID ED, and current WIP, do not specify WebID, they only specify
> use GETable HTTP URI and a mediatype.
>
> Our progress as a group to actually specifying WebID is consistently
> stopped by this single item.
>
> The only conceivable way to progress is to completely strip the mention of
> MUSTing any mediatype. Specify everything else, then either do not mention
> it, or handle it last.
>
> Handle it last is likely going to have to happen.
>
> Whose requirements are not met then, and what
>> breaks? And are those potential breakages really worse than the
>> "reasonable breaking change" of adding JSON-LD?
>>
>
>  If I've framed this correctly, then this is a moot point. We remove any
> mention of MUSTing mediatypes whilst we make progress as a group to
> actually specify WebID.
>
> Then, as a last task, revisit this, if it's still determined to be
> required.
>
> I would like all members of the group to be able to agree this. To
> temporarily strip the MUST mediatype, and defer all discussion of it until
> everything else is complete.
>

Agree