Add similar id protected term redefinition test. #570
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
- Add test of redefining equivalent id terms in different forms:
- `"foo": {"@id": "ex:foo"}`
- `"foo": "ex:foo"`
gkellogg
reviewed
Jul 10, 2023
Yes, though surely the "same as the previous" was not intended to trigger errors on meaningless differences due to syntactic sugar. It seems we have an oversight here where we need to clarify that processors must de-sugar things to properly compare for "sameness". |
gkellogg
added a commit
to ruby-rdf/json-ld
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 17, 2023
gkellogg
approved these changes
Jul 17, 2023
dlongley
approved these changes
Jul 17, 2023
pchampin
approved these changes
Jul 20, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
"foo": {"@id": "ex:foo"}"foo": "ex:foo"This currently fails in jsonld.js and with the distiller. Should implementations be considering these forms equivalent as far as protected redefinition checks are concerned?