IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Mon, 24 October 2011 21:11 UTC

Return-Path: <derhoermi@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: ietf-types@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-types@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C4411E80AE for <ietf-types@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.274
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 4M9TCIWrwBSM for <ietf-types@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3CD4711E80B6 for <ietf-types@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2011 21:11:54 -0000
Received: from dslb-094-223-152-226.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO HIVE) [94.223.152.226] by mail.gmx.net (mp006) with SMTP; 24 Oct 2011 23:11:54 +0200
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+W4eRHwZCW2XDk4cTiJ/eyC8vG6TKGP/+bsUfitQ Y5stTAGJMprNAq
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: "Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@forgerock.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:11:59 +0200
Message-ID: <vpkba751umlb8n8mklpajvkg7a45udhb7n@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <1319490143.23040.8.camel@neutron>
In-Reply-To: <1319490143.23040.8.camel@neutron>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: ietf-types@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-types] Request for review: application/json-patch
X-BeenThere: ietf-types@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Media \(MIME\) type review" <ietf-types.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-types>, <mailto:ietf-types-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-types@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-types-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-types>, <mailto:ietf-types-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:11:59 -0000

* 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?

>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.

>Applications that use this media type:
>   HTTP clients and servers.

Well. Revision control systems for instance might use it.

>Change controller:  Paul C. Bryan <paul.bryan@forgerock.com>

This would have to be some standards organization like "The IETF."
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email