Re: [Geojson] [art] renamed draft: "A Media Type Structured Syntax Suffix for JSON Text Sequences"

I read the draft.

I support the registration of the +json-seq structured syntax suffix.

Two concerns:
<1>
+json-seq could be used with text/*+json-seq, not just application/*+json-seq. This should be addressed. The underlying application/json-seq (RFC 7464) only supports LF as a delimiter; this should be noted that it could be (and likely will be) CRLF when in text/* based media types. I think.

<2>
The fragment identifier is not fully specified, but that section says some stuff anyway. I think it should say something concrete, simply because the registration says that anything not in +json-seq is fair game for FOO/BAR+json-seq. Therefore, designers of FOO/BAR+json-seq ought to know what “holes” there are in +json-seq to play with. That includes application/geo+json+seq even though apparently there is no need for specific fragment identifiers at this time.

May I suggest: #n[:xxx], where n is the index of the JSON item, in decimal 0-9 ASCII. It could be 0-based or 1-based, to taste. If [:xxx] is present, the xxx is the fragment identifier according to application/json (which, apparently, has no fragment identifier syntax).

This means that anyone developing a specific media type structured as +json-seq has broad reign over any fragment identifier sequence that doesn’t start with 1-9 (or 0-9, as the case may be).

...or, you could say nothing about fragment identifiers. application/json-seq doesn’t say anything, and it’s getting along just fine.

Regards,

Sean

> On Sep 23, 2016, at 12:48 AM, Erik Wilde <erik.wilde@dret.net> wrote:
> 
> hello all.
> 
> On 2016-09-20 01:32, Erik Wilde wrote:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-json-seq-suffix
>> (i just realized that i have used the wrong shortname and will fix this
>> asap to say "draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix", but for now please have a
>> look at the draft that is linked above.)
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix is the renamed draft (just submitted today) that updates the incorrectly named previous one. nothing else has changed but the name.
> 
> any feedback about this would be very welcome. we need this proposed new media type structured syntax suffix for ongoing work in the GeoJSON WG. i hope that we can move this draft very quickly and get the suffix registered, so that we can use it here:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geojson-text-sequence-02#section-5
> 
> thanks a lot and cheers,
> 
> dret.
> 
> -- 
> erik wilde | mailto:erik.wilde@dret.net |
>           | http://dret.net/netdret    |
>           | http://twitter.com/dret    |
> 
> _______________________________________________
> art mailing list
> art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art