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

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sat, 05 July 2014 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DEB91A00FF for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 19:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8mZIRqggWgo6 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 19:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f171.google.com (mail-vc0-f171.google.com [209.85.220.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 954C51A00B9 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 19:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id id10so2129958vcb.30 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Jul 2014 19:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Xm8t0NHRl+VLO7LU4hNAj53athoidc23hoNGb/L9llg=; b=R+oRJiKSUgJM9LuGlskqHTo2siPYxowk1DliKAtWVJARjgq/DCOe6ut2w7CB8cxFGI M8sP8HKxysOUX/sfXDo/wfmxGQBRk58pokWkvXK7sfY+Mp9qwfj4llBfdFDevi12fAyM Buwb0ws5fqhJdFXfRuFu6i8/S+sXrc8gEp56dAhGsuLW6RF1sysfdOb2UwOIen0XNvti jUSUSOSQz9fFYige+FQhncAZZe2KSQ2jg2PA9Aa8JcDaq705l78DURZ3YgSxNyusoujx iYGna4icQAqZJNbaOsNbkjCMZ/Lk7xujg1hlj5wAIdwjj3UUBzrcOoA9s7juzMHqikdY aEqA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk1yX7bMT209XIbbKLm5j6mNibn/993Q/9u2JM40jL0LftbZT/6TKOGGoBL2f0E2PcUAlXS
X-Received: by 10.58.188.199 with SMTP id gc7mr12549430vec.4.1404525870597; Fri, 04 Jul 2014 19:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.221.49.199 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 19:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <CFDCB00F.52A7B%jhildebr@cisco.com>
References: <CALcoZionwZ1gn0hkhq4sKcDKg3LK13+d-XvBzXUA4iHjS6PHNA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgU5veinaNJ6ptLJ509QD3R5=LEbpfmNjZSy5C+8jfPXg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iuc2j4a5VYnrboMEMnAPxhs5i+iZxfpbfnN1oa3740TfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALcoZioTakxzkuvrt1EgNAKS==NNskWJ1TLUjxtZ1TBGPD+EXw@mail.gmail.com> <CFDCB00F.52A7B%jhildebr@cisco.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 19:04:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6itO8SbfwEK5ssSHCt+d8oH700w4+dK-g8mn413gmmMUVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b5db99e98626c04fd68a903"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/44e7v0z7xOe-HvxTPRHpzOJEcjI
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <ietf@hallambaker.com>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Media types, extensibility in draft-ietf-json-i-json-02
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 02:04:33 -0000

So, would an I-JSON media type help in producing the desired effect? Not
obvious to me.  In practice, I’m supposing that if I’m writing a consumer
for JIP (Joe’s Internet Protocol) I’d toggle my JSON parser into I-JSON
mode because I know that’s what the RFC said.


On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <
jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:

> There are times when, in the documentation for a service that is producing
> JSON, I would like to say:
>
> "If you receive a message from me that is not strictly I-JSON, I would
> prefer you treat it as an error on my part, and therefore treat my message
> as invalid, because if something went wrong enough that what I sent you
> wasn't valid I-JSON my server room is likely on fire."
>
>
> On 7/2/14, 1:42 PM, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> >> I’ll say that just on Web-architectural grounds, I think distinct data
> >> formats should have distinct Internet Media Types, and so it bothers me
> >>that
> >> we don’t have one for i-json.  But the WG couldn’t perceive any real
> >>value
> >> in having one that’s distinct from JSON’s and I didn’t have  a
> >> forceful-enough argument to move the consensus on this.
> >
> >Were there driving use cases behind I-JSON? I could imagine a
> >(atypical) scenario where it's used as a "publishing profile",
> >defining a best practice for publishers (Postel-ian style), with no
> >regard for what happens once it's consumed. You wouldn't need to say
> >anything about media types then.
> >
> >But if you want to be able to exchange I-JSON over the Web or
> >Internet, so that recipients know, e.g., not to add duplicate keys,
> >then that can only practically be indicated with a new media type.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >json mailing list
> >json@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
> >
>
>
> --
> Joe Hildebrand
>
>
>
>


-- 
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)