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

On 2014/07/05 11:04, Tim Bray wrote:
> 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.

I fully agree here. They way I see it, there would then be a media type 
for JIP, which e.g. could be application/jip+json. The JIP RFC would say 
that JIP uses I-JSON, and receivers that had a choice would toggle as 
explained above. But still the +json suffix would mean that the 
documents could take advantage of generic JSON processing (whatever that 
is).

Another way to express this is to say that in as far as there is a JSON 
'ecosystem', it would be a bad idea to try and split that ecosystem into 
two (JSON and I-JSON) at the top.

Regards,   Martin.

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>