-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: weakening the requirement on turtle in favor of orthogonality #66
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Tiny tweak. The rest is liveable.
@TallTed I'll take it :) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can live with this, however a strong preference to no should turtle, or second.preference to should turtle & json-ld.
Concern being that if a simple change from should to must slips in and we're back to square one.
A no should approach would align with the original super and sub spec approach, allowing sub specs of WebID-Turtle for example to say must Turtle.
/chair hat on @webr3 thank you for reviewing!
Preference noted! Thank you for being willing to compromise, I really, really appreciate that.
If this PR were ever to be merged, reverting to a MUST would qualify as a breaking change, meaning the respective PR would be subject to a review period of four weeks (just like this one). Plenty of time for others to notice a slip like that. While I understand where you are coming from, I also think we'd be safe from this specific danger. Nonetheless, concern noted.
True, though I am afraid it would push things too far against the interoperability concerns that have been raised, concerns that this PR already puts in second place behind orthogonality. |
The text as written contradicts itself, but that can be fixed with wordsmithing. Specifically, these as written (not as intended) are contradictory:
I suggest to use a more precise language, which uses sentences with actors as a subject (documents cannot do anything):
That said, a |
/chair hat on
Thanks for reviewing @RubenVerborgh ! Good clarifications that bring no practical changes - I will implement them right away.
Yep, agreed. This CG itself could also decide to change things if/when presented with evidence that this approach doesn't work. It depends on how events will line up (temporally) and what this CG will want to do after addressing the remaining issues. To me, at this time, a new "frozen" ED seems a good idea and I would entertain the idea of a formal report. |
…T to a SHOULD, favoring orthogonality, while explicitly suggesting Turtle for interoperability
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
/chair hat on Today's the end of the review window - merged! |
This PR weakens the current MUST on Turtle, favoring orthogonality, while still explicitly suggesting Turtle for interoperability.
Quoting from #61 (comment) :
Deadline for review is set to four weeks from now, on 2024-03-25.
As always, the fact that a PR exists doesn't automatically imply that it has to be merged at the end of its review period. This is the first attempt at addressing the issue of serialization formats, following countless comments and literal years of debate. Though I honestly believe that it does represent a good compromise (and the only one I could come up with), I'm fully aware that it might fail to gather enough consensus. The only thing I ask is to approach this with an open mind and some self-reflection on which specific hills each of us really wants to die on.
Do not bother reviewing the
spec/identity/index.html
as that's automatically updated by our current CI setup based on the contents ofspec/identity/index.bs
. We'll sort this out in a separate issue / PR.EDIT: here's the links to the rendered files: