- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 17:06:10 +0200
- To: public-socialweb@w3.org
On 05/19/2015 04:47 PM, James M Snell wrote: > That could be difficult for implementers using existing json-ld stacks. Given existing JSON-LD stacks are still not widely deployed, maybe it would be a good idea to revise that toolset to be consistent with I-JSON? It seems like the right long-term bet, but I'm not sure what the resourcing level is in current JSON-LD implementations to revise, but I don't see anything in I-JSON that would break JSON-LD off the top of my head at a quick glance. > On May 19, 2015 7:31 AM, "☮ elf Pavlik ☮" <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> > wrote: > >> On 03/23/2015 09:40 AM, Erik Wilde wrote: >>> hello. >>> >>> fyi, there just was a new RFC for JSON. it is called I-JSON and is meant >>> to be a more restricted subset of JSON ruling out some of the more >>> obscure things that are legal in JSON, but may lead to strange behavior >>> and inconsistent interpretation across implementations. >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7493 >>> >>> if we go the plain JSON route, we could say something similar to the >>> idea of postel's law: AS producers should only produce I-JSON, but they >>> should be prepared to consume unrestricted JSON. >>> >>> cheers, >>> >>> dret. >>> >> sounds reasonable to me, recommend it in AS2.0 spec as well as for >> Social API! >> >
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2015 15:06:17 UTC