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

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

Phillip Hallam-Baker scripsit:

> The only use for Content-Type is for content negotiation.

This isn't true in general, unless you consider mere announcement to
be a subtype of negotiation.  ("Let's negotiate: you do what I say,
mmmkay?")  One and the same entity body could be JSON, plain text, HTML,
or some binary format, and only the Content-Type: header can say which.
It's perfectly reasonable to imagine an application which can accept any
of these.

> There is no situation in which a negotiation that makes a distinction
> between JSON and I-JSON makes any sense.

That's true, but it doesn't mean that there is no point in labeling
I-JSON as such.

> Content identification that tells me a document is JSON is useless
> unless I know the schema or purpose of the document.

Not so.  For example, it may be your job to deserialize the JSON into
some internal format for processing by someone else.

> If I write a protocol then I am going to tell people to use I-JSON
> encoding or there is no value to it. If the sender has an option to
> choose between JSON and I-JSON then I have to implement both and
> nothing is saved or simplified.

+1 to that.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        [e-mail]
O beautiful for patriot's dream that sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears!
America! America!  God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law!
        --one of the verses not usually taught in U.S. schools