IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sun, 06 July 2014 05:12 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 8F1FD1A01CB for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 22:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.478
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
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 JOQn1wqdS5ZP for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 22:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-f181.google.com (mail-ve0-f181.google.com [209.85.128.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 880651A01C6 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 22:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f181.google.com with SMTP id db11so2835277veb.40 for <json@ietf.org>; Sat, 05 Jul 2014 22:12:56 -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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Io/PmL6cDmXGtBoXVr99zYoDUsOUKZmHv8H57nV2wnk=; b=H3CPmXf3zL3rhv13aAqnBNyaWRddiU4YU9TjMSWKwYavhO5WqxQlUiCUQbJKtVtd+t aIf0700BUYkkPiCgBWzj7Z/mMWeZ3369WAlHpXF7WCc5ao5TONhsVVDlzq0dz7dfqOZp cN02dVKHvg37e35hwV+s4Y4dEhGDgtlsIX1zp4FT8v2+L1KaC0Hzal7KBlNCGRCVFNRv ARvQjuqbLEqtiCjLHTyHCGY/vXP7Gb3mfKEUQusMnT5SAB4W7VIRguspB75qRhrOQSdc kBcLhpecEUr4reG82kCGyHJkQu3OFZ5OJERQSnUR158unce6WhHA01WFPup/tl5/KAz3 7nIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkX1vQdfX7juuQVIN0xkyM9HLv5vwOjJo2DJk3Vq4EEY53hw3COhbeUODeR5Z3Rw+H1H+1y
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.84.162 with SMTP id a2mr16269330vdz.23.1404623576633; Sat, 05 Jul 2014 22:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.221.49.199 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 22:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
Received: by 10.221.49.199 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 22:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CFDE30C2.52BE7%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> <3b407fff0cc14d5ba291cea58bacac4f@BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CFDE30C2.52BE7%jhildebr@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 22:12:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6itrQTvccZqTXDBo4MaK9Txu7gGfGh8mfS4Rmv73DwSXfQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11368f565426d504fd7f6911"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/FHAPzNuHaPQ-JaxPJ5adQIuoU20
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <ietf@hallambaker.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, 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: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 05:12:58 -0000

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.
On Jul 5, 2014 9:48 PM, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
wrote:

> On 7/5/14, 1:02 AM, "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> >In this particular case, I can't think of a situation
> >where you wouldn't also want to validate other constraints
> >as well.
>
> I think the implication of us publishing I-JSON at all is that there are
> many people that might want to start with this set of constraints.  If we
> don't think that is the case, we shouldn't publish the doc as an RFC.
> None of the I-JSON constraints are domain-specific, unlike most of the
> other constraints you will want to check.
>
> --
> Joe Hildebrand
>
>
>
>

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status