Add type property to only two examples that dont have it

[gobengo]

I've been doing some scraping of this spec, and then subsequent JSON-LD validation. In doing so, my program caught that two examples don't specify the type property and thus have no @type.

This adds them.

[cjslep]

Fixes #444 ?

[gobengo]

So... bump.

Have I done something wrong process-wise such that this hasn't come up in any of the meetings for 3 months to even get a +0 or 'can you join a meeting to explain it'? IIRC I did wake up early and join the meeting after filing this, which was cancelled at the start because who-knows-why.

This isn't just a question. It's (I believe) a legit 'bug' in the consistency of the spec (examples are not actually valid examples of what they are trying to exemplify), and is the result of dozens of hours of hacking that led to its discovery.

@aaronpk @cwebber - Respectfully, you two are chairing this CG. I can't merge this PR. All I can do is propose it. But what's a hacker, implementor, been around AS1,2 for 5+ years, gotta do to get taken seriously when trying to help improve this spec? What intentions or commitments do you have to shepherd these things or click the big green button?

If that's undefined, then can I propose that there automatically be an agenda item in every meeting to review and comment on open PRs? #480 is up too with no input but potentially a bug in the consistency of AS2.

[evanp]

@gobengo thanks for the PR. I believe that the type is left out of those examples on purpose. I need to confirm with @jasnell and make sure it's right to add the type in.

I appreciate the change; let's make sure it's the right thing to do before we merge it.

[evanp]

So, I think the type was left out on purpose on example 61.

For example 102, I've added an erratum, since the document is final. Once the erratum is accepted, we can add the text to the editor's draft.

So, let's use that process instead. Thanks for the PR, sorry to leave it open for 6 years!