- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:11:31 +0200
- To: <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
Hi all, I just sent this e-mail in response to Michael[tm] Smith's request [1] to register application/microdata+json to ietf-types but I think this is a better place to discuss this... so sorry for the cross-post. I was wondering whether it was considered to use JSON-LD [2] instead of creating application/microdata+json. The resulting output would be more or less the same. For example the following application/microdata+json document: { "items": [ { "id": "http://example.com/id1", "type": [ "http://example.com/type1" ], "properties": { "property1": [ "value1" ], "property2": [ { "id": "http://example.com/id2", "type": [ "http://example.com/type2", "http://example.com/type3" ], "properties": { "property3": [ "http://example.com/value3" ] } } ] } } ] } Could be expressed in JSON-LD as { "@graph": [ { "@id": "http://example.com/id1", "@type": [ "http://example.com/type1" ], "property1": [ "value1" ], "property2": [ { "@id": "http://example.com/id2", "@type": [ "http://example.com/type2", "http://example.com/type3" ], "properties": { "property3": [ { "@id": "http://example.com/value3" } ] } } ] } ] } Or, by aliasing JSON-LD's keywords even as which is almost exactly the same as the application/microdata+json counterpart: { "@context": { "id": "@id", "type": "@type", "items": "@graph" }, "items": [ { "id": "http://example.com/id1", "type": [ "http://example.com/type1" ], "property1": [ "value1" ], "property2": [ { "id": "http://example.com/id2", "type": [ "http://example.com/type2", "http://example.com/type3" ], "properties": { "property3": [ { "@id": "http://example.com/value3" } ] } } ] } ] } [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg01714.html [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-syntax/ -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 09:12:08 UTC