@@ -203,8 +203,31 @@ <h2>Scope</h2>
203203
204204
205205 < ol >
206- < li > [Placeholder: safe mode]</ li >
207- < li > [Placeholder: context file hash, and related stuff]</ li >
206+ < li >
207+ JSON-LD has become a common structural foundation for a wide range of data models. Some of
208+ those environments have more restrictive requirements than others on how unmapped terms should be treated (i.e.,
209+ when JSON keys present in the document have no term definition in the context). The current
210+ JSON-LD API stipulates that the unknown term is silently ignored. The Working Group will specify
211+ a "safe mode", that will detect these situations and cause the processing to fail. This mode is
212+ already available in some JSON-LD API implementations, such as
213+ < a href ="https://github.com/digitalbazaar/jsonld.js?tab=readme-ov-file#safe-mode "> jsonld.js</ a > and
214+ < a href ="https://dotnetrdf.org/2025-07-03-dn4-3-4-0-released/#:~:text=This%20release%20also%20introduces%20a,rather%20than%20silently%20ignoring%20them. "> dotNetRDF</ a > ,
215+ and is especially useful if the resulting RDF Graph is to be canonicalized.
216+ </ li >
217+ < li >
218+ External (i.e., non-inline) JSON-LD context files are identified using URIs. This is a common
219+ pattern across many technologies that has, at times, confused implementers who
220+ expect that they should always use these identifiers as locators, and dereference them. This
221+ assumption can create risks and vulnerabilities that have been documented, but also often overlooked, in previous versions of JSON-LD.
222+ The Working Group intends to address this problem through education (i.e., more
223+ specification text) and exploration of options such as the addition of a hash fragment to be used
224+ with the application/ld+json media type responses. This fragment conveys a content hash which
225+ may be used by implementations to further confirm and handle the intentions of the original
226+ document author. (This has already been discussed by the Working Group, see, for example,
227+ the open issues < a href ="https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/108 "> 108</ a > ,
228+ < a href ="https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/436 "> 436</ a > or
229+ < a href ="https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/422 "> 422</ a > .)
230+ </ li >
208231 </ ol >
209232
210233 <!-- Note that the JSON-LD APIs are not browser specific; while appropriate for use within browsers, they are not limited to such use, and there is no requirement for browsers to implement them natively. -->
0 commit comments