Add test for JSON-LD inside a JSON literal.

[davidlehn]

Add test, or tests, to ensure JSON literals are not processed as JSON-LD.
This should at least be an expand test that ensures the JSON-LD-in-JSON stays unexpanded.
This was an issue in the jsonld.js implementation.

[davidlehn]

Expand #js08 already exists. @dlongley What additional tests, if any, would be useful here? Something with a @context?

[dlongley]

Yes, we should add something with a @context that uses a URL (or a something non-resolvable like a URN). jsonld.js would have previously erroneously resolved it and replaced it inline with the context document.

[iherman]

This issue was discussed in a meeting.

• RESOLVED: Accept test for JSON-LD embedded in JSON to test suite (no editorial action)

View the transcript

JSON-LD featuring JSON featuring JSON-LD test
Rob Sanderson: #237
David I. Lehn: a literal JSON can contain JSON-LD (e.g. a @context key)
… we need to make sure that processors do not try to process that
Rob Sanderson: this is only editorial; the text already says “do not touch this”
Proposed resolution: Accept test for JSON-LD embedded in JSON to test suite (no editorial action) (Rob Sanderson)
Rob Sanderson: +1
David I. Lehn: how should we process such issues?
Ivan Herman: +1
Tim Cole: +1
Ivan Herman: I don’t think we should use meeting time for this
Harold Solbrig: +1
David I. Lehn: +1
Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1
Resolution #3: Accept test for JSON-LD embedded in JSON to test suite (no editorial action)
Gregg Kellogg: +1
Rob Sanderson: but we need to point to a resolution in the PR solving the issue

[davidlehn]

@gkellogg I don't think the requested test exists yet? Something with a @context in the JSON as @dlongley mentioned above.

[gkellogg]

@davidlehn I thought that this issue referred to changes in #238 and #240. Can you create a new PR referencing this issue that does what you indicated?

[gkellogg]

This should be solved with #263