Re: [Json] I-JSON Topic #1: Media Types?

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Mon, 28 April 2014 19:56 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <535EAFDF.2020403@cisco.com>
References: <535EAFDF.2020403@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:56:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOgTXEpbsVAX1D2XvJ+TzfBfvEdkZ2LefhfKsPu0eECXww@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/Y6EGPGMpO-Aa716hCSlgWMNOB_0
Cc: IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] I-JSON Topic #1: Media Types?
Precedence: list

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com> wrote:
> "Should there be an I-JSON media type, or a application/*+i-json
> suffix?  Draft i-json-01 calls for it, but this is at best controversial."
>
> If you are in favor -- or not -- of an I-JSON media type or media type
> suffice, please respond to this thread with your reasoning.

To me this is closely related to the top-level type question.  For
both I have this reply:

ISTM that the top-level-must-be-an-object requirement is really for
indicating schema information in-band.  But we already rely on
indicating format out of band (via MIME type).  I find in-band schema
signalling in JSON to be a bad idea, especially when we can do it
out-of-band anyways.

Question: can schema information be encoded as a parameter to the
application/json media type?

Something like Content-Type: application/json; schema=FooBar .

Nico
--

[Json] I-JSON Topic #1: Media Types? Matt Miller
Re: [Json] I-JSON Topic #1: Media Types? Nico Williams
Re: [Json] I-JSON Topic #1: Media Types? Tim Bray
Re: [Json] I-JSON Topic #1: Media Types? mike amundsen
Re: [Json] I-JSON Topic #1: Media Types? John Cowan
Re: [Json] I-JSON Topic #1: Media Types? Paul Hoffman
Re: [Json] I-JSON Topic #1: Media Types? Martin J. Dürst
Re: [Json] I-JSON Topic #1: Media Types? Stefan Drees
Re: [Json] I-JSON Topic #1: Media Types? Matt Miller