IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> Wed, 02 July 2014 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@coactus.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 A254B1A04F1 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 nQuHWif7Ft9x for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A415A1A03D4 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id rd3so13126954pab.3 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 12:42:59 -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:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XdBCan4CtA4bgYjEZZnzOOfWgEYckb4jUdiGw4w6Ak4=; b=Mvd4V4U3n9+1zModrpvJLgnGt5T10EEdN5u6tXomoyN3TgDxfcfLwXDMCqjja0n42W KwdEn3j94K0LWbWAG+J0F5xxsw9q2FIsyO8nRml6BO11RnNCohGBjpAxAwWFWCVNvlcc J6HOFtol9KbVB9ABvjtcMj4jliZfmqJHa66IpC+cYI4ttkCuUzyAY4TgmexWC+wip+G6 Idk8gRv1dJb8YDCQf8XgRhdm9VawdW0o4s+U3YSXoKpKnPi9/Wfx+u9iWkFRamHkeTsD 6ADqpKaaVdyiiAgy8TvKajuG/djmVEI30UPg94BjOqo+yErWmyObmNfdV3lJAA9tuxP1 EoPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlOmagihiaLilM1Gr81rMTdP5wRH7rbPokh2uPbv0OhPjqSg+6JplKAREazv6+HZ+3Q3ih1
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.160.163 with SMTP id xl3mr73392116pbb.39.1404330179245; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 12:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mark@coactus.com
Received: by 10.70.22.134 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [192.0.216.13]
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6iuc2j4a5VYnrboMEMnAPxhs5i+iZxfpbfnN1oa3740TfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALcoZionwZ1gn0hkhq4sKcDKg3LK13+d-XvBzXUA4iHjS6PHNA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgU5veinaNJ6ptLJ509QD3R5=LEbpfmNjZSy5C+8jfPXg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iuc2j4a5VYnrboMEMnAPxhs5i+iZxfpbfnN1oa3740TfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 15:42:59 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: _jN6XQrpWgfdKmR97j74W_pC4Ug
Message-ID: <CALcoZioTakxzkuvrt1EgNAKS==NNskWJ1TLUjxtZ1TBGPD+EXw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/_ERIgxmIijdsHJQJYHJq6jxDSOI
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <ietf@hallambaker.com>, JSON WG <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: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 19:43:00 -0000

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.

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