CIP-0119 - Inconsistent field name

[palas]

I've noticed when addressing this issue that while the schema calls this field "type", in this example it is written as "@type". We probably should make this consistent. And I imagine we should favour "@type" for consistency with CIP-0100

[rphair]

Thanks @palas - I can see the consistency. I don't work with related tooling so I'm tagging some reviewers & stakeholders to choose which term is canonical & agree upon a plan to change the other one. If there's no obvious choice about which is canonical, or uncertain implications in changing it, we'll put it up for discussion on Discord and/or the next CIP meeting.

cc @Thomas-Upfield @Ryun1 @gitmachtl @perturbing @Crypto2099 @Quantumplation

[gitmachtl]

@palas i agree. @type is one of the registered keywords for json-ld format. i am not sure if db-sync is checking on that too.

[rphair]

@palas please confirm here if you'd like to submit a pull request standardising on @type in the schemas & we can likely put it through at or before the CIP meeting next week.

[palas]

Sorry, I just saw the message. I am happy to make a PR to address this and also #949

[rphair]

yes (and I also made #949 (comment) before seeing this), we appreciate the help @palas & I'll review and pass them along ASAP as soon as you submit the pull requests.