Open dbaron opened 5 years ago
@dbaron Thanks for the comments. Some of this is the result of recent document reorganization, which is still in progress.
I fixed the broken link.
The examples on \@language/\@dir are all "valid" examples, although a couple are demonstrative of why you want a default. I will try to clarify. I will also break out localizability/language negotiation.
Related to these examples, @language
as a top-level key does not set the "default language" in JSON-LD as it is described here. The valid JSON-LD format is to use the @context
space (as describe in the prose), so the example would start with:
{
"@context": {"@language": "en"},
...
}
Also, we are not planning (currently) to support @dir
as implied here in the examples because the underlying RDF-based processing model does not provide a means to describe a base direction for a string value. You can see the JSON-LD WG's discussions about it here: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/11
We determined that using embedded HTML restricted to text-level semantics (...through a method yet to be defined...or by implementers/consumers via purification) for any need for bi-directional or multi-language texts. It does require a minimal HTML parser, but it would co-exist with current foundational RDF-model foundations used in JSON-LD at this time.
It's the "best worst" option atm afawk. 😃
There are some issues with the examples in the section on document level @language and @dir that make it a bit confusing.
First, the example begins with a link whose text is "original example" but the link is broken; I think it should instead link to section 1.3.1.
Then it's worth noting that this section has three chunks of JSON, but it doesn't clearly identify which of them represent good practice and which of them represent bad practice.
There are a number of differences between the examples that seem to confuse things unnecessarily:
publisher
It seems to me that:
(I got here from w3ctag/design-reviews#178.)