Re: [Json] What is a JSON-text? [REVISITED]

["Manger, James H" <[e-mail]>]

> What Larry said.

I certainly agree with this part of what Larry said:
>> it fits within the convention of Internet Media Types to
>> accept extensions that are lexically distinguishable.

> The RFC is very clearly defined to not allow this. The reasons for
> allowing other top-level values make total sense, but they're not JSON.
> One language that uses JSON allows more, but that's not JSON, else
> Crock would have written something different down.

I thought Crock did write something different down -- at the next opportunity which was when specifying JSON in ECMAScript 5.1.

> Allowing more top-level values in text/json does *not* help interop; it
> hurts it.
> 
> OTOH doing it in another, separate media type (along with all of the
> other things we want to fix up) is perfectly workable; it improves
> interop for those who choose to use it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> P.S. What we need to realise here is that just because we have the pen
> for bis, doesn't mean we can change the reality of deployed
> implementations, except with *very* gentle nudges over long periods of
> time. Or, put another way: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=409Pjtq7jzY>

I thought this would be a gentle nudge over a long period.

--
James Manger


> On 04/10/2013, at 7:09 AM, Larry Masinter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > I think you might make more headway if you think about the primary
> role of 4627 and 4627bis
> > as registering Internet Media Types.  Consider, for example, having
> two media types
> >
> > text/json and text/json+
> >
> > the first of which is 4627 compatible, and the second (text/json+)
> allowing "non-container"
> > top level.
> >
> > Everything that is valid text/json would also be valid text/json+
> with the same interpretation.
> >
> > Or, you could keep the same internet media type and just declare it
> an extension,
> > like image/gif changed for GIF89a. Or Postscript changed and still
> kept
> > application/postscript. Yes, it's a change, no it fits within the
> convention of Internet
> > Media Types to accept extensions that are lexically distinguishable.
> >