[Json] Re: IANA registrations

[Henry Andrews <[e-mail]>]

 The idea behind application/instance+json was simply that application/json does not allow for a fragment syntax, nor does it allow for a media type parameter (e.g. schema or profile, depending on which draft you read).  Defining a media type seemed to be the way to make our usage of fragments and media type parameters for instances valid, although perhaps we misunderstood the rules here.
I expect many instances will have their own +json media types.  For example GeoJSON defines a standard schema and also the application/geo+json media type.  The application/schema-instance+json media type was just for when you want formal correctness with fragments and parameters, but don't have a reason to mint your own media type for your use case.
thanks,-henry
    On Monday, May 18, 2026 at 01:43:47 PM PDT, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:  
 
   
I am wondering about the value of application/instance+json.  I would have expected each instance to have its own registration.  Otherwise we're going through multiple levels of dispatch, which seems to invite new bugs.  It also seems to me better to fail earlier in the process if you don't know what to do with a particular schema.  I guess the idea here is to avoid requiring new IANA registrations?
 
Eliot
 _______________________________________________
json mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]