Re: [Json] Media types, extensibility in draft-ietf-json-i-json-02

we should use media type registration to define well-formedness --
"shannon-message" style
we should use profile registration establishing app semantics and validity

mamund
+1.859.757.1449
skype: mca.amundsen
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com/mamund
https://github.com/mamund
http://linkedin.com/in/mamund

On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
wrote:

> On 7 Jul 2014 at 16:49, Erik Wilde wrote:
> > hello markus.
> >
> > On 2014-07-07, 16:40, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> >> On Sunday, July 06, 2014 7:13 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
> >>> So, question: Is there anyone else who agrees with Mark's original
> >>> argument that there ought to be a Media type for i-json. I wouldn't
> >>> be wildly against it, but frankly can't see much of a practical upside.
> >>
> >> I don't think it makes much sense to define a separate media type for
> i-json
> >> and even less a media type suffix. It *might*, however, make sense to
> mint
> >> a profile URI as defined by RFC6906 [1] for i-json and register it
> according
> >> RFC7284 [2].
> >
> > that would have made a lot of sense if JSON had chosen to support
> > profiles in its recently published update, which it unfortunately
> > didn't.
>
> You mean adding a "profile" media type parameter, right? I don't really
> know
> what the process is but I think now that json-bis was published as an RFC
> (it was out of scope for that work), the JSON WG could re-register the
> media
> type and add such a parameter
>
>
> > i guess the problem now is that there is no agreed-upon way how
> > profiles are signaled in JSON, which makes the profile mechanism only
> > moderately useful.
>
> The server can signal it to the client using an HTTP Link header using the
> "profile" link relation. What's currently not possible, is for the client
> to
> request i-json instead of json from the server. I don't think that's a big
> problem in practice though as I don't expect a server to support both
> i-json
> and json at the same time anyway.
>
>
> > but i still agree that it would be useful to include
> > such a profile URI for I-JSON in the spec, so that JSON-based formats
> > that have an agreed-upon way of signaling profiles can use it.
>
> Minting and registering such a URI is extremely cheap and has no negative
> side effects I can think of. We can figure out later if we need to do more
> (e.g. adding a profile parameter to application/json).
>
>
> Cheers,
> Markus
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>