Re: [apps-discuss] text/yaml Re: [media-types] OpenApi media type registration questions

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

I've seen the discussions on Yaml Core <[e-mail]>.

Scott K

On March 10, 2016 5:01:31 AM EST, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>I missed the YAML 2.0 activity -- do you have a pointer?
>
>What's out there is mainly YAML 1.2, and that would be the target.
>
>(I'm interested in this not only because most software I use has some
>YAML component to it, but also because YAML and CBOR have a pretty good
>feature match -- CBOR already has its JSON-based "diagnostic notation",
>but YAML as a human-oriented extension of JSON brings a lot to the
>table.)
>
>Grüße, Carsten
>
>
>Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 09, 2016 05:28:26 PM Sean Leonard wrote:
>>> [adding apps-discuss and dispatch]
>>>
>>> On 3/9/2016 5:20 PM, Darrel Miller wrote:
>>>> Sean,
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: media-types [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>Of
>>>>> Sean Leonard
>>>>> RFC 6838 Section 6
>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838#section-6
>>>>>
>>>>> RFC 6839 has examples of the template actually instantiated in the
>text.
>>>> Thanks. So this is where I find myself in a catch-22 situation.  In
>order
>>>> to register the +yaml suffix, it needs to there a reference to a
>>>> specification for YAML.  However, there is no such specification
>that is
>>>> managed by a SDO. I searched in the YAML Core mailing list and back
>in
>>>> 2003 they discussed their plan to use text/yaml as the media type. 
>There
>>>> has been no further discussion of registering a media type since
>then on
>>>> the list.
>>>>
>>>> So it seems that, without a spec under an SDO, it would not be
>possible to
>>>> register text/yaml or register the suffix.
>>>>
>>>> It seems that the only option available would be for someone to
>convince
>>>> the YAML team to allow a variant of their spec (it has images in
>it) to
>>>> be created as an IETF spec.
>>>>
>>>> Does that reasoning appear sound?
>>> Not exactly.
>>>
>>> First of all, it's the same situation as Markdown (see the
>text/markdown
>>> discussion over time on the apps-discuss mailing list).
>>>
>>> The most important hurdle has been passed: some people actually
>*want*
>>> text/yaml.
>>>
>>> The second hurdle has also (likely) been passed: people are actually
>>> using text/yaml for YAML stuff. This turns out to be more useful
>than
>>> the registration itself. Deploy first, register later. ;-)
>>>
>>> The next hurdle is overcoming developer laziness, since it requires
>some
>>> modicum of effort to do the registration. Sounds like we have a
>willing
>>> victim...er...volunteer. ;-)
>>>
>>> Getting text/yaml just requires an Informational independent-stream
>or
>>> IETF stream RFC. First write an Internet-Draft. The Internet-Draft
>can
>>> reference the yaml.org specification, without changing control over
>the
>>> specification to the IETF. Then submit the draft to the dispatch
>mailing
>>> list. (Maybe also a couple of other mailing lists, for places in
>IETF
>>> that use YAML.)
>>>
>>> Depending on the outcome of the discussion, either the IETF will
>take it
>>> up, or not. If they do, then the media type registration will be
>>> published with IETF Consensus (see text/markdown). If not, then it
>can
>>> still be published an the independent stream by submitting it to the
>>> Independent Submissions Editor (see image/bmp, aka
>>> draft-seantek-windows-image)
>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/>.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have not tried to register a structured syntax suffix before.
>>> Superficially, the process appears to be simpler, as it only needs
>>> Expert Review. For that, just follow what RFC 6838 Section 6 says.
>> 
>> Are we talking YAML 1.0, YAML 1.1, or the draft YAML 2.0 that's
>currently 
>> being specified?  Does it matter?
>> 
>> Scott K
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>apps-discuss mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss