Closed iherman closed 4 years ago
This issue was discussed in a meeting.
ACTION: find reference to file extensions for profiles re annotation (Rob Sanderson)
ACTION: comment in issue inviting DID WG to JSON-LD WG regular call next week to discuss (Rob Sanderson)
See my comment in the WG issue.
👎 to registering
application/jsonld
, if there is a way to avoid it. Registering with a profile parameter, or something likeapplication/anno-ld+json
would seem preferable. What happens if there are sub-profiles of anno, or some other sub-type?Surely, we can't be the first format to run-into more than one-level of media-type sub-types.
This issue was discussed in a meeting.
RESOLVED: Ask IETF if the JSON-LD media type registration can specify that it should be able to be used with additional +s, such as did+ld+json, with the intent to fallback to ld+json and then to json. If the answer is no, then we proceed with the profile pattern.
RESOLVED: In IANA considerations, allow file extension registration with profile registration.
RESOLVED: Conforming json-ld processors SHOULD treat *+ld+json in the same way as the application/ld+json media type
ACTION: contact IETF about the multiple pluses in the JSON-LD registration (Rob Sanderson)
I agree to close this.
This issue came up in the DID Working Group, as part of the discussion on how to define a media type for a DID document. Instead of repeating all the issues, please refer to https://github.com/w3c/did-spec/issues/1.
If accepted it should be done before CR, because that should be reflected in the API document as well.