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

Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Thu, 10 March 2016 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
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 63D6612D89C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:07:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gulbrandsen.priv.no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oRnD4UyR6xIw for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:07:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F99212D909 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:01:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48483FA0082; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:01:02 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gulbrandsen.priv.no; s=mail; t=1457618462; bh=Ob/5KkDA2DTw5v6hI+vFJ87lEH4QNSDOZDCnpLfHoq0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=HTu4csWp/aK/pXgITamiccZ2xF/ZYRuzXK3XYqapzk80EeBYQP5VAp+KyyQJDpUtO dyZofyzhyBxFOkPovnFgkEZAfTXa6fe5NC54rQ/jRrLg1uwBP9wt13ElGfD92VLBtI k8xSGK+GC+q9jq6WcVvNavH/xbnc7o9zKoBaAv5s=
Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1457618461-637-19604/11/13; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:01:01 +0000
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:01:00 +0000
User-Agent: Trojita/v0.5-9-g8961725; Qt/4.8.6; X11; Linux; Debian GNU/Linux 8.2 (jessie)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <ea43d611-9aac-494a-87ea-9d35bf37d0ff@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
In-Reply-To: <56E145FB.5010303@tzi.org>
References: <SNT405-EAS138D1B69D14EDBB70D8B858A3B20@phx.gbl> <SNT405-EAS34588208A678723B2EDD9FA3B40@phx.gbl> <56E0CDBA.3050301@seantek.com> <4354120.g6DGuWIEuT@kitterma-e6430> <56E145FB.5010303@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/qUKdFZV9b9kJVvd2G-zd1TeAlPo>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] text/yaml Re: [media-types] OpenApi media type registration questions
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 10 Mar 2016 14:07:45 -0000

Why should the registration be specific to one version?

I think the most widely used type with significantly different versions is 
HTML. AFAICT, the text/html media type is used for all versions of HTML in 
practice, https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/html seems to 
permit that, and if it's been a major problem, I haven't noticed.

Why is versioning more important to YAML than to HTML?

Arnt