- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:45:05 +0100
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, denis@w3.org
- Cc: "\"Martin J." Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
(adding Denis Ah-Kang, the current W3C Webmaster in copy) Le mercredi 14 décembre 2011 à 10:36 +0000, Marcos Caceres a écrit : > > Also, the RDF stuff was developed by people with interest in RDF (and > > maybe even writing RDF-related specs, of which there are quite a few), > > and at a time where JSON was not the big thing it is now, if it existed > > at all. It's not that the W3C decided to have this data in RDF only and > > never produce anything else. > > Dom, can we have a JSON version of the /TR/ specs please? It would be mostly trivial to do (a simple XSLT should be able to transform the relevant RDF bits into JSON), and should also be easy to integrate in the current publication workflow. But note that the JSON file would have the same problem as the RDF one, namely that the order of the editors would be wrong — getting this fixed in the RDF file has been a long standing bug. A few questions, though: * do we want the equivalent of ReSpec.js' biblio.js, or a JSON file with more structured data on the specs? * if the latter, can anyone propose a sample of what the JSON properties should be? Denis, is it something you would have cycles and interest to work on? I can help if needed, but would rather not drive it unless nobody else can. Dom
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 10:45:33 UTC