Re: [apps-discuss] type name suffixes

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 11/16/11 10:14 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> I believe that the suffix +xml has an important function as an
> indicator that the body of the content is suitable for generic XML
> processing, for example, in the use of XPointer as a fragment
> identifier, and the ability to use a generic XML parser to scan the
> content. The expectation is that Media types that end in +xml are, in
> fact, restricted to only contain content that fits, and that RFC 3023
> (and RFC 3023bis in preparation) defines that meaning and establishes
> that requirement.
> 
> The URI specification defers the interpretation of fragment
> identifiers (#xxx at the end of a URI) to the definition of the media
> type of the retrieved content.
> 
> The reason for holding back on other +xxx typename suffix is only to
> insure that there is a clear definition for what expectation there
> might be for common processing techniques and fragment
> identifiers....  that is, there is an operational requirement and
> definition, not just a vague "feel good".
> 
> So, for example,  type/subtype+json content labeled with a +json
> media type should be restricted, for example, to content that can be
> updated with json-patch PATCH operations, and generic json
> processing.
> 
> I think a separate specification for what the generic processing
> requirements and compatibility should be strongly recommended. It's
> not just a "feel good sounds right" matter.

Larry, that is helpful.

To be clear, the two suffixes I've seen interest in are:

+json = <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4627>

+exi = <http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-exi-20110310/>

We do need to take these on a case-by-case basis and we need to define
them clearly, but I doubt that we will see a flood of them.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/