Closed elf-pavlik closed 9 years ago
answered in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2014Sep/0086.html
I took some time this past week to have a detailed conversation with Arnaud, reviewing IBM's goals around Activity Streams and determining exactly what our requirements are. That discussion settled on one very specific point: although we have product shipping today that uses the Activity Streams 1.0 syntax, maintaining forwards or backwards compatibility with that syntax in whatever this WG produces is not a critical requirement for us. - James M Snell
That compatibility with AS 1.0 is not a critical requirement for IBM is a very important information.
I would qualify this by saying that while backwards compatibility is not a critical requirement, breaking changes just for the sake of change are just a bad idea. Right now things are defined such that valid AS 1.0 documents are still valid 2.0 documents, that's valuable IMO.
I must say that I find it truly mindblowing :bomb: how you manage to marry AS1.0 and JSON-LD via AS2.0 :exclamation: Let's try ASAP get some real world AS1.0 documents, parse them as JSON-LD and look at RDF graphs we get :microscope:
@jasnell @evanp can you please point me to few examples of AS1.0, out in the wild, which we could use for testing with current AS2.0 JSON-LD context?
During our last telecon @jasnell mentioned a design choice motivated by intention to keep backward compatibility with AS1. I would find it useful to understand what other design choices come out of this motivation.
-- https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-09-09-minutes