5 ms·
For an argument against using JSON-LD, see https://hsivonen.fi/no-json-ns/ https://hsivonen.fi/no-json-ns/
by yoklov 8y ago
For an argument against using JSON-LD, see https://hsivonen.fi/no-json-ns/ https://hsivonen.fi/no-json-ns/
- appdrag 8y agoLove this. Thanks will share it :)
- dochtman 8y agoSee also this recent Mozilla discussion on the proposed charter for the W3C working group: https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/tpaAdIM7BGo https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platfo...
- vfaronov 8y agoThis article does not have a valid argument against using JSON-LD. It may be read as an argument against making namespaces a ubiquitous part of JSON, in the same way as they are ubiquitous in XML (even though not part of the base XML spec). It’s a valid argument against getting to the point where namespaces pop up in every JSON tutorial, and every JSON serializer takes a namespace map, and every user of JSON has to deal with them. But JSON-LD (as RDF) uses namespaces to solve a particular problem (merging data from disparate sources). Solutions involve costs, that’s normal. You might weigh this cost against the expected payoff and decide it’s not worth it for you — but the article doesn’t do that.