Tracking Issue: JSON-LD concerns

[burnburn]

This is a tracking issue to make sure a particular concern is clearly recorded. Duplicates will be closed.

@nadalin has raised a concern with JSON-LD as a supported syntax in the specification [1][2][3] and has asserted that non-JSON-LD users will be forced in some way to do JSON-LD processing. The specification makes clear that there is no expectation that all implementers of the specification must implement all of the syntactic representations. Additionally, the Working Group has clearly identified an intent to ensure that only users of JSON-LD are required to do any JSON-LD processing, while all other formats have only syntax constraints that may appear to be JSON-LD but in fact require absolutely no JSON-LD processing. We believe the specification reflects this intent.

[1] #525
[2] #557
[3] #489

[burnburn]

In the 16 July 2019 VCWG call:

RESOLVED: The Working Group has addressed all concerns outlined in issues #633 and #634 to the best of their ability, these are architectural decisions made by the group, and asserts that the specification reflects the consensus position of the Working Group and thus the issues should be closed.