Doug Schepers

> :-1: to requiring explicit UA functionality for every motivation. > Behaviors of different clients could be very very different with > the same data, and we don't want to...

Another con for generic JSON MIME type: - doesn't allow for annotation file type (I think?)

> :-1: to multiple media types. I wasn't proposing multiple media types, I was proposing a single media type that isn't `application/ld+json`. > All of the pros listed are possible...

See also @iherman's thoughts on #30: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/30#issuecomment-165180831

> The proposals miss the actual current proposal of using a profile: the media type > would be application/ld+json;profile="http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld" Where was this proposal made? Is it implicit in #30? If...

@iherman Okay, thanks for the explanation. I didn't understand that from either the issue (which wasn't explicit about the implications on the MIME type if we have a profile) or...

1) A "groups" feature is not only about authorization and access control (though that's a major part of it); there may be "open groups" that are more about distribution and...

@iherman When we add a feature, we need to know what the requirements are, so we can make sure it has the right characteristics. My expectation is that this will...

To be clear, I'm not suggesting we define those access-restricted categories, just that we enable communities to do so.

@BigBlueHat Why should groups (or even access control) only be done via the protocol? What about annotations that are stored locally, or exchanged offline, or otherwise not accessed via the...