Larry Masinter wrote: > > For "+json" to be useful for anything, it has to mean something that > everyone agrees to it meaning... and the only way we have of getting > that agreement is to publish a document and put it through a > consensus process (notwithstanding those who prefer the" willful > violation" path). > Sure. But first, the groundwork for such an effort must be laid, such that it applies to +anything. I'm talking about defining extensions in the registry, not +json per se. What's the counter-argument here, in favor of leaving extensions undefined? -EricReceived on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 03:24:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:37 UTC