Skip to content

Example 102: url property missing type: "Link" #444

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

Open
2 of 5 tasks
cjslep opened this issue Jan 2, 2018 · 2 comments
Open
2 of 5 tasks

Example 102: url property missing type: "Link" #444

cjslep opened this issue Jan 2, 2018 · 2 comments
Labels
cfc Call for consensus

Comments

@cjslep
Copy link

cjslep commented Jan 2, 2018

Please Indicate One:

  • Editorial
  • Question
  • Feedback
  • Blocking Issue
  • Non-Blocking Issue

Please Describe the Issue:

In https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary, Example 102 is:

{
  "@context": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
  "type": "Video",
  "name": "Cool New Movie",
  "duration": "PT2H30M",
  "preview": {
    "type": "Video",
    "name": "Trailer",
    "duration": "PT1M",
    "url": {
      "href": "http://example.org/trailer.mkv",
      "mediaType": "video/mkv"
    }
  }
}

The url property of preview is missing its "type": "Link" property of the object to be a valid ActivityStream object.

Note that according to the core ActivityStream spec: https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#link

That the type property for the Link type is omitted as whether being required or optional:

The target URI of the Link is expressed using the required href property. In addition, all Link instances share the following common set of optional properties as normatively defined by the Activity Vocabulary: id | name | hreflang | mediaType | rel | height | width

Note that for the Object type, which is explicitly disjoint from Link in the ActivityStream vocabulary, it does mention type as being optional:

All properties are optional (including the id and type).

Therefore, according to an implementation I am working on, Example 102 would not be within spec.

gobengo pushed a commit to gobengo/activitystreams that referenced this issue Jan 24, 2018
@evanp
Copy link
Collaborator

evanp commented Feb 28, 2024

We discussed during issue triage whether this is actually an error. We think it's on the fence, but the point of the example is not to show Link values without a type property, so it's definitely clearer with the type. I've added an erratum with the corrected values. Once it's approved by the CG, we can add it to the editor's draft.

@evanp
Copy link
Collaborator

evanp commented May 23, 2025

I made a call for consensus on applying this PR to update the errata:

#585

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cfc Call for consensus
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants