> On 22 Apr 2015, at 18:37, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> {
> "@type": "Application",
> "image": [
> {
> "@type": "Link",
> "href": "http://example.org/image <http://example.org/image>",
> "mediaType": "image/jpeg"
> },
> {
> "@type": "Link",
> "href": "http://example.org/image <http://example.org/image>",
> "mediaType": "image/png"
> }
> ]
> }
>
> Either that, or we change mediaType to support multiple values.
>
> {
> "@type": "Application",
> "image": {
> "@type": "Link",
> "href": "http://example.org/image <http://example.org/image>",
> "mediaType": ["image/jpeg", "image/png"]
> }
> }
>
> The former works today with no modifications. The latter would be a minor modification.
>
> - James
Those are not the only two options, and I don't think we should be limited by those.
The first option makes it difficult to think about content negotatable resources, and therefore is problematic for LDP, and the web in general, as argued in pull request 100 [1]. So at least there is a -1 from me for the LDP camp.
The second option is is very confusing, and not that helpful. It would not allow you to specify file sizes for example.
The option that is most expressive is the one shown in this diagram:
<https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/124506/7276753/4e46bd18-e90c-11e4-947c-0930f443f2a2.png>
It allows you to cover both the previous versions, and also work with content negotiation. It also drops the reification type of as:Link which is really not that helpful. So you get simplicity and more expressivity.
Hope that helps,
Henry
[1] https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/pull/100#issuecomment-95253148
>
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
