Re: [apps-discuss] Questions about Structured Syntax Suffixes (SSS)

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 24 May 2012 11:08 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F52321F861C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 May 2012 04:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VRbddazl0EYg for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 May 2012 04:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 35C9321F8611 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 May 2012 04:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 May 2012 11:08:35 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp033) with SMTP; 24 May 2012 13:08:35 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX198BscEbqh8NmLsMv6Pv+Xyg6v5oE3Y1D5bcM0R4K yMUQEhHWYb5ZWs
Message-ID: <4FBE16B1.2060801@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 13:08:33 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
References: <832E3E94-723B-4DC9-A9D5-46EA7A7DB427@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <832E3E94-723B-4DC9-A9D5-46EA7A7DB427@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Questions about Structured Syntax Suffixes (SSS)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 11:08:38 -0000

On 2012-05-24 03:35, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> I apologise if this has already been discussed, but this list has become nearly unreadable recently.
>
> <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-01.txt>  motivates SSS with:
>
> """
> 2.  When to Use these Structured Syntax Suffixes
>
>     Each of the Structured Syntax Suffixes defined in this document is
>     appropriate for use when the media type identifies the semantics of
>     the protocol payload.  That is, knowing the semantics of the specific
>     media type provides for more specific processing of the content than
>     that afforded by generic processing of the underlying representation.
>
>     At the same time, using the suffix allows receivers of the media
>     types to do generic processing of the underlying representation in
>     cases where
>
>        * they do not need to perform special handling of the particular
>        semantics of the exact media type, and,
>
>        * there is no special knowledge needed by such a generic processor
>        in order to parse that underlying representation other than what
>        would be needed to parse any example of that underlying
>        representation.
> """
>
> Question: Is this actually useful in practice? I.e., what are the real-world use cases for SSS?
>
> We started this experiment with +xml, and I'm not aware of much software that uses that suffix to great advantage (please educate me if I'm overlooking something).
> ...

XMLHttpRequest does.

Best regards, Julian