Closed OR13 closed 1 year ago
I have joined the group and signed the IPR agreement, but this change is indeed substantive.
We tried to do this in JSON-LD 1.0, but IANA wasn't prepared to allow such structured suffix registrations at the time. @msporny was the primary person driving this, IIRC.
We tried to do this in JSON-LD 1.0, but IANA wasn't prepared to allow such structured suffix registrations at the time. @msporny was the primary person driving this, IIRC.
Yes, and that led to this draft that allows this sort of structured suffix registration:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mediaman-suffixes-04.html
The specification above is reaching IETF Last Call, and so we need to test to see if the new spec will allow what we tried to register many years ago.
"+ld+json" is the first dry run of this new ability to register media types and structured suffixes with multiple plus signs. This PR places the structured suffix registration request into the JSON-LD Syntax specification such that we can trigger the IANA registration (as long as the JSON-LD WG is still ok w/ this registration).
@pchampin can we clear the IPR exception?
@OR13, you may need to set up your W3C account to know about your GitHub ID for the IPR validation to work automatically. I see you're listed as a participant, so I'm going ahead and marking it as complete.
(Never mind, it re-evaluated on it's own).
I don't intend to accept the change suggestions that add extra text to h2/h3 and make the sidebar look bad.
I don't intend to accept the change suggestions that add extra text to h2/h3 and make the sidebar look bad.
I guess I will have to wait until PR#415 is merged (assuming it's accepted), and submit my own subsequent PR for the heading changes, to see what the WG prefers and the Editors will therefore apply.
The PR is on the agenda for the CH call this Wednesday. When considering @TallTed’s suggestion, I’d consider other similar registrations and look for some form of conformity.
The format of the YAML Media Type seems to match @TallTed’s suggested change.
The format of the existing registration matches mine.
The yaml spec isn't using respec, so it in general looks a lot nicer...
@gkellogg are you able to suggest changes on the PR?
I can probably push commits to your branch, or do a PR into your branch.
The GitHub UI also has a suggest changes feature, which would allow me to commit your suggestion directly to the branch
The GitHub UI also has a suggest changes feature, which would allow me to commit your suggestion directly to the branch
Yes, IIUC, it only allows changes to lines that were already in the branch; this could be used for some changes, but not to add anything to the "Changes since ..." section.
@OR13 I made some inline suggestions, and comments about further changes that should probably be made directly to your branch. If you agree, I'll do that. It would still leave some duplication, which could be managed by further extracting into common sections, but improves it quite a bit, otherwise.
Note that I expect we'll follow this PR up with some more editorial changes.
@gkellogg thanks for your suggestions, I merged the ones I could, and I authorize you to push whatever you like to the branch, and or reword any amount of this in subsequent PRs, I am mostly hoping to have a stable reference ahead of IETF 117 in case this comes up, so if its possible to merge (even with notes , issue markers or warnings before then, I appreciate it).
In the case it is not merged by 117 I will update IETF, that this is still in progress and might need to be updated depending on how WGLC goes for multiple suffixes draft.
This should just need @pchampin's approval, and decision on the suggestions for updating the contact in the registrations.
Awesome!
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2023-11-28
Preview | Diff