Re: [core] draft-bormann-core-links-json: call for adoption

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On May 22, 2013, at 12:37, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Well, maybe the audio is more useful... (http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf86/ietf86-caribbean6-20130312-1300-pm1.mp3, if you actually look into it, start at 65:00).

Oops, the file name in the minutes was wrong (fixed); make that ietf86-caribbean5-20130313-1300-pm1.mp3

What I said:
-- It is sad that we have different serializations for things
-- On the backend, web-app, services side, it is quite usual these days to find information in JSON format
-- It is useful to have a single [i.e., standard] way to express link-format information in JSON
-- As a side-effect, we create good precedent for application developers to represent link-format information in the same way in different applications.
   We make it simpler for application developers to think about link-format because they know how it looks like in JSON.  But that is a side effect.

Switching to the how from the why:
-- That is not rocket science -- [showing slide] this is essentially the technical content of the draft.
-- The main decision is what name are we using for the Path component of the link.
-- We settled on href because this is already taken so there can't be a conflict.
-- One little detail: Content-Format (ct) looks like a number in link-format, but looks like a string in the JSON.
   We don't have a distinction between number and string in the link-format... so we are treating everything as a string.

Grüße, Carsten