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

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:media-types-bounces@ietf.org] 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
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> 