Update "feature at risk" markers as Sandro suggested
authorMarkus Lanthaler <mark_lanthaler@gmx.net>
Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:15:50 +0200
changeset 1528 516ebc34f10d
parent 1527 f2b15a252b16
child 1529 0f3e729d4e3c
Update "feature at risk" markers as Sandro suggested

This addresses #224 and #234.
spec/latest/json-ld-api/index.html
spec/latest/json-ld/index.html
--- a/spec/latest/json-ld-api/index.html	Tue Apr 02 15:01:48 2013 +0200
+++ b/spec/latest/json-ld-api/index.html	Tue Apr 02 16:15:50 2013 +0200
@@ -98,6 +98,9 @@
     border-bottom:  1px dotted #ff4500;
     text-decoration: none;
   }
+  .atrisk-head {
+    font-style: italic;
+  }
 </style>
 </head>
 
@@ -909,16 +912,18 @@
               error has been detected and processing is aborted.</li>
             <li>If <i>context</i> has an <code>@base</code> key:
               <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="1" title="@base keyword">
-                <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from
-                  this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
+                <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is
+                  <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi">"at risk"</a> and may
+                  be removed from this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
                   <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>.
                   For the current status see
                   <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
-                <p>This feature is at risk as the fact that a document may have multiple base
-                  IRIs is potentially confusing for developers. It is also being discussed whether
-                  relative IRIs are allowed as values of <code>@base</code> or whether the
-                  empty string should be used to explicitly specify that there isn't a base IRI,
-                  which could be used to ensure that relative IRIs remain relative when expanding.</p>
+                <p>Support for the <code>@base</code> keyword might be removed from JSON-LD 1.0 if
+                  implementation experience reveals that the fact that a document may have multiple
+                  base IRIs is confusing for developers. It is also being discussed whether relative
+                  IRIs are allowed as values of <code>@base</code> or whether the empty string should
+                  be used to explicitly specify that there isn't a base IRI, which could be used to
+                  ensure that relative IRIs remain relative when expanding.</p>
               </div>
               <ol class="algorithm">
                 <li>Initialize <i>value</i> to the value associated with the
@@ -3068,15 +3073,16 @@
     <p>This algorithms converts a JSON-LD document to an <tref>RDF dataset</tref>.</p>
 
     <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="3" title="Allow blank nodes to be used as graph name or property">
-      <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from
-        this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
+      <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is
+        <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi">"at risk"</a> and
+        may be removed from this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
         <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>.
         For the current status see
         <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
-      <p>RDF does not currently allow a <tref>blank node identifier</tref> to be
+      <p>RDF does not currently allow a <tref>blank node</tref> to be
         used as <tref>graph name</tref> or <tref>property</tref>. Implementations
-        might convert such <tref title="blank node identifier">blank node identifiers</tref>
-        to <tref title="IRI">IRIs</tref> by minting new "Skolem IRIs" as per
+        might convert such <tref title="blank node">blank nodes</tref> to
+        <tref title="IRI">IRIs</tref> by minting new "Skolem IRIs" as per
         <cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-skolemization">Replacing Blank Nodes with IRIs</a></cite>
         of [[RDF11-CONCEPTS]].</p>
     </div>
@@ -3286,21 +3292,21 @@
       <tref title="named graph">named graphs</tref> into a JSON-LD document.</p>
 
     <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="5" title="Converting list of lists to JSON-LD ">
-      <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from
-        this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
+      <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is
+        <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi">"at risk"</a> and may
+        be removed from this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
         <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>.
         For the current status see
         <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
-      <p>In the interest of space and
-        simplicity, the steps necessary for handling lists of lists have been omitted.
-        Such lists and their elements must, recursively, be handled like other lists.
-        Lists of lists can, however, not be represented in JSON-LD using <code>@list</code>;
-        they have to be represented as a set of interlinked node objects using RDF's
-        <code>rdf:first</code> and <code>rdf:rest</code> properties.
-        <em>NOTE:</em> this is an at-risk feature. The Working Group might either require
-        handling of lists-of-lists or forbid them in JSON-LD. Implementers please send
-        reports of whether you are able to implement handling for lists-of-lists or
-        would instead request such structures be disallowed.</p>
+      <p>In the interest of space and simplicity, the steps necessary for handling lists
+        of lists have been omitted. Such lists and their elements must, recursively,
+        be handled like other lists. Lists of lists can, however, not be represented
+        in JSON-LD using <code>@list</code>; they have to be represented as a set of
+        interlinked node objects using RDF's <code>rdf:first</code> and <code>rdf:rest</code>
+        properties. The Working Group might either require handling of lists-of-lists or
+        forbid them in JSON-LD 1.0. Implementers please send reports of whether you are
+        able to implement handling for lists-of-lists or would instead request such
+        structures be disallowed.</p>
     </div>
 
     <section class="informative">
@@ -3864,17 +3870,19 @@
           an IRI, the base IRI defaults to the current document IRI if in a browser context,
           or the empty string if there is no document context.
           <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="4" title="Default value of base member in JsonLdOptions">
-            <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from
-              this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
+            <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is
+              <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi">"at risk"</a> and may
+              be removed from this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
               <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>.
               For the current status see
               <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
-            <p>The default value of this option implies that all IRIs that cannot be compacted otherwise
-              are transformed to relative IRIs during compaction. To avoid that data is being lost,
-              developers thus have to store the base IRI along with the compacted document. This might
-              be problematic in practice and thus the default behavior might be changed in future.
-              Furthermore, the relationship of this option to the <code>@base</code> keyword
-              (which is at risk) should be further investigated.</p>
+            <p>The default value of <code class="idlMemberName"><a href="#widl-JsonLdOptions-base">base</a></code>
+              in <a>JsonLdOptions</a> implies that all IRIs that cannot be compacted otherwise
+              are transformed to relative IRIs during compaction. To avoid that data is being
+              lost, developers thus have to store the base IRI along with the compacted document.
+              Based on implementer feedback, the  Working Group may decide to change the default
+              value to <tref>null</tref>, meaning that IRIs are not automatically compacted to
+              relative IRIs.</p>
           </div>
         </dd>
         <dt>boolean compactArrays = true</dt>
--- a/spec/latest/json-ld/index.html	Tue Apr 02 15:01:48 2013 +0200
+++ b/spec/latest/json-ld/index.html	Tue Apr 02 16:15:50 2013 +0200
@@ -791,16 +791,18 @@
   <h2>Base IRI</h2>
 
   <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="1" title="@base keyword">
-    <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from
+    <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is
+      <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi">"at risk"</a> and may be removed from
       this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
       <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>.
       For the current status see
       <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
-    <p>This feature is at risk as the fact that a document may have multiple base
-      IRIs is potentially confusing for developers. It is also being discussed whether
-      relative IRIs are allowed as values of <code>@base</code> or whether the
-      empty string should be used to explicitly specify that there isn't a base IRI,
-      which could be used to ensure that relative IRIs remain relative when expanding.</p>
+    <p>Support for the <code>@base</code> keyword might be removed from JSON-LD 1.0 if
+      implementation experience reveals that the fact that a document may have multiple
+      base IRIs is confusing for developers. It is also being discussed whether relative
+      IRIs are allowed as values of <code>@base</code> or whether the empty string should
+      be used to explicitly specify that there isn't a base IRI, which could be used to
+      ensure that relative IRIs remain relative when expanding.</p>
   </div>
 
   <p>JSON-LD allows <tref>IRI</tref>s to be specified in a relative form which is
@@ -1976,12 +1978,14 @@
   <h2>Reverse Properties</h2>
 
   <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="2" title="Reverse properties">
-    <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from
+    <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is
+      <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi">"at risk"</a> and may be removed from
       this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
       <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>.
       For the current status see
       <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
-    <p>This feature is at risk.</p>
+    <p>Reverse properties might be removed from JSON-LD 1.0 if implementation
+      experience reveals problems with supporting this feature.</p>
   </div>
 
   <p>JSON-LD serializes directed <tref title="JSON-LD graph">graphs</tref>. That means that
@@ -2728,15 +2732,16 @@
   </ul>
 
   <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="3" title="Allow blank nodes to be used as graph name or property">
-    <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from
+    <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is
+      <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi">"at risk"</a> and may be removed from
       this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
       <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>.
       For the current status see
       <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
-    <p>RDF does not currently allow a <tref>blank node identifier</tref> to be
+    <p>RDF does not currently allow a <tref>blank node</tref> to be
       used as <tref>graph name</tref> or <tref>property</tref>. Implementations
-      might convert such <tref title="blank node identifier">blank node identifiers</tref>
-      to <tref title="IRI">IRIs</tref> by minting new "Skolem IRIs" as per
+      might convert such <tref title="blank node">blank nodes</tref> to
+      <tref title="IRI">IRIs</tref> by minting new "Skolem IRIs" as per
       <cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-skolemization">Replacing Blank Nodes with IRIs</a></cite>
       of [[RDF11-CONCEPTS]].</p>
   </div>
@@ -3046,7 +3051,8 @@
     its value MUST be an <tref>absolute IRI</tref> or <tref>null</tref>.</p>
 
   <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="1" title="@base keyword">
-    <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from
+    <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is
+      <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#cfi">"at risk"</a> and may be removed from
       this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
       <a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>.
       For the current status see