torgo: Should we bump this one to next week as well?

dbaron: I did a quick review, added a comment in the issue. So far I've read the requirements and explainer, not the spec. Interested in how the spec deals with issue around URLs and origins and packaging. Another week seems good.

torgo: I will also try and read the spec before the next call.

David: Read explainer, use cases and spec, probably in that order. Use cases document seemed scary. But then the spec seemed much less scary. So perhaps the use cases document should be revised? Perhaps not?

David: The concept of a canonical identifier was interesting. Might not be the URL from which you're accessing it. Quasi URN type thing but they're using a URL.

David: Use of JSON-LD - may be interpreted as JSON or may be ... processed into a graph? Would like to be explicit that it's intended to be read purely as JSON.

Dan: Where is this comment?

David: In the 3rd paragraph in the long comment, and the third bullet point in my earlier comment.

Dan: I need to catch up on your comments.

Tess: I read it on a plane, and my impression was that it was very thorough.

David: I disliked their use of WebIDL's partial everywhere, and I don't think I like partial in general because it's like a goto but in reverse.

Tess: Yeah it's more or less a syntactic sigil that you're doing monkeypatching.

David: In each section they monkeypatch the previous section.

Dan: Need to message Hadley since she's on the issue as well. Seems like we may be almost ready to close this off.

David: They wished to have comments in advance of their f2f which is next Monday and Tuesday.

Dan: Well, we have left comments. We should leave additional comments individually if we have them. Let's revisit on the 8th and see whether anything comes back from them as a result of the f2f.

David: I should also file an issue with them.

Dan: Marking as pending external feedback

[i'm due to talk to Tzviya tomorrow about both of the above