Re: [ietf-types] Request for review: application/json-patch

["Paul C. Bryan" <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 23:11 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> >The Internet media type for a JSON Patch document is application/
> >json-patch.
> 
> What is your reasoning behind not using the "+json" convention?

In a previous draft, it was "application/patch+json", but I was advised
that:

a) application/schema was possibly too basic a base type, and
b) there is no formalization around +json extension yet.

> >Type name:  application
> >
> >Subtype name:  json-patch
> >
> >Required parameters:  none
> >
> >Optional parameters:   none
> >
> >Encoding considerations:
> >   Per JSON [RFC4627]: 8bit if UTF-8; binary if UTF-16 or UTF-32.
> 
> Either say something like "Same as for application/json." or "binary".
> It would seem to me that RFC 4627 is mistaken in using "8bit" as that
> is "The content of the media type consists solely of CRLF-delimited
> 8bit text." but JSON does not require CRLF.

Okay, thanks.

> >Applications that use this media type:
> >   HTTP clients and servers.
> 
> Well. Revision control systems for instance might use it.

True. Is there a way to just indicate general purpose usage instead of
trying to enumerate all the specific types of applications I could
imagine making use of this?

> >Change controller:  Paul C. Bryan <[e-mail]>
> 
> This would have to be some standards organization like "The IETF."

Okay.

Thanks for the review.

Paul