Re: [apps-discuss] draft-saintandre-json-namespaces-00 comments

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 08 November 2011 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 9BA6411E8086 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:11:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, 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 60dOtzoAY4td for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:11:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D92B911E808F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 11:10:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.6.129.78] (unknown [64.39.4.135]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE85522E254; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 14:10:52 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <4EB97122.7010206@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:10:53 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D75C8075-C8DF-4AA2-9DFC-CED719A0564E@mnot.net>
References: <4EB923CF.7080600@wp.pl> <566A345F-15CD-473B-8472-11EDF73A3862@vpnc.org> <9D5B00CA-9370-45D6-835B-3C7A1ADFEBBC@mnot.net> <4EB97122.7010206@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, apps-discuss Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-saintandre-json-namespaces-00 comments
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: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:11:00 -0000

I don't think URIs should be used for this.

On 08/11/2011, at 12:12 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2011-11-08 18:10, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> +1 to Paul's -10.
>> 
>> My take on it:
>> 
>> http://www.mnot.net/blog/2011/10/12/thinking_about_namespaces_in_json
>> 
>> Let's keep this simple and avoid repeating the mistakes of XML, OK?
>> ...
> 
> Well, there are two different issues:
> 
> 1) Using URIs for disambiguation, and
> 
> 2) Using a prefix-URI mapping to make things more compact.
> 
> The reasons for 2) would be readability and compactness, but would make processing the content much more complex. I don't believe it's needed here.
> 
> Re 1) -- well, if you have URI-based identifiers to start with, there's little choice. You could declare the problem to be an SOP, in which case you shouldn't even look at the draft. Or one could introduce yet another indirection mechanism (-> 2).
> 
> Best regards, Julian

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/