-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
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
Implement Best Practices section #50
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.
Please consider wrapping lines on natural boundaries, which make it easier to make change suggestions through GitHub.
Not sure I agree with all of the best practices you propose, but it's an interesting point of discussion.
Thanks @gkellogg! Co-authored-by: Gregg Kellogg <[email protected]>
Line wraps added, thank you for pointing out. |
Agreed it cannot be the only or the default option. But I think there should be an option |
yaml supports |
This PR was discussed in the 2022-07-06 meeting, and it was agreed to merge. |
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
@anatoly-scherbakov I've added you to the team, which allows you to make branches within this repo. That way, it's easier for others to collaborate on your PRs. Please reconcile the conflicts in your branch and we can merge. |
Best practices
This PR is to propose some thoughts I had derived from discussions held in the issues of this repo. It adds a new informative section to the spec modeled after (and referencing) JSON-LD Best Practices document.
It would seem that the consensus of the group is a strong intention to keep YAML-LD and JSON-LD convertible from one to another using mainstream JSON and YAML tools. That means the proposed hard-wired
$
←→@
conversion is not feasible.As an alternative, a special context was suggested in a discussion, and that is implemented in this PR. I thought that adding it as a normative requirement would be a bit too restrictive — that was the main motivation to include a new non-normative section to the doc, to suggest this context just as a possible solution.
I will probably add a few more UCRs for other questions touched by this PR.
Thank you!
Preview | Diff