search

manton / JSONFeed

The JSONFeed.org website
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
943 stars 56 forks source link

Related specs and comparisons #42

Open dret opened 7 years ago

dret commented 7 years ago

i always find it useful to see a format/spec put itself into context. it seems that JSON feed could do that in relation to at least two existing "JSON feed formats", which are activity streams and Collection+JSON. i don't mean for this to be a competition, but many people reading the spec will wonder what the differences are, and giving them something to read will be very helpful.

strugee commented 7 years ago

Related (dupe?): #20

dret commented 7 years ago

On 2017-05-19 11:32, Alex Jordan wrote:

Related (dupe?): #20 https://github.com/brentsimmons/JSONFeed/issues/20

agreed that #20 is related. feel free to mark mine as a duplicate. i was calling out Collection+JSON because that one is more specifically aiming at atom as well. whereas activity streams is broadly in the same realm, but has a different history and assumptions (and since the move to W3C it arguably was turned into RDF instead of JSON and simply still happens to have a JSON-based serialization).

manton commented 7 years ago

Thanks y'all. Another similar format is JF2: https://www.w3.org/TR/jf2/, based on Microformats. (Really there are probably at least 4-5 related JSON formats that could be referenced, although I could see that happening as blog posts elsewhere instead of in the spec itself.)

dret commented 7 years ago

On 2017-05-19 20:15, Manton Reece wrote:

Thanks y'all. Another similar format is JF2: https://www.w3.org/TR/jf2/, based on Microformats. (Really there are probably at least 4-5 related JSON formats that could be referenced, although I could see that happening as blog posts elsewhere instead of in the spec itself.)

absolutely. if there are stable and standardized formats, maybe having informative sections in the spec is useful. if they are informal or draft-level projects, then maybe not so much. ymmv.