-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
Remove "Using an HTML document as a Context section. #212
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
Conversation
This reverts w3c/json-ld-api#66, which we can do because of #204.
For #172. |
@@ -13443,10 +13302,6 @@ <h2>Changes since JSON-LD Community Group Final Report</h2> | |||
<li><a>Term definitions</a> with keys which are of the form of a <a>compact IRI</a> or <a>absolute IRI</a> MUST NOT | |||
expand to an <a>IRI</a> other than the expansion of the key itself.</li> | |||
<li>Define different processor modes: <a>pure JSON Processor</a>, <a>event-based JSON processor</a>, and <a>full Processor</a>.</li> |
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.
Should we also remove these processor modes now?
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.
We might rename it, but the full Processor mode still defines the ability to extract JSON-LD from html. The PR just removes the need to use this for contexts.
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.
k. We at least have a naming collision here then.
Processing mode (changed via @version
)
vs.
Processor Levels (pure, full, and event-based)
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.
Looks good to me! Thanks!
One small comment added, but it can be addressed separately if needed.
Is it intended that we still have a broken reference to the removed section (at the end of section 5)? |
No, of course not. This was something dangling between the two different PRs, apparently. Fixed in 06505e3. |
This reverts w3c/json-ld-api#66, which we can do because of #204.
Preview | Diff