Re: [media-types] [art] renamed draft: "A Media Type Structured Syntax Suffix for JSON Text Sequences"

[Erik Wilde <[e-mail]>]

hello sean.

thanks for your feedback, and i think both of your comments are 
interesting. but i also think that they would be misplaced in this 
particular draft.

On 2016-09-26 04:27, Sean Leonard wrote:
> Two concerns:
> <1>
> +json-seq could be used with text/*+json-seq, not just application/*+json-seq. This should be addressed. The underlying application/json-seq (RFC 7464) only supports LF as a delimiter; this should be noted that it could be (and likely will be) CRLF when in text/* based media types. I think.

RFC 7464 does not say anything about text/json-seq (it only registers 
the application/json-seq media type) and thus it would be inappropriate 
to make the suffix be more encompassing than the underlying media type.

> <2>
> The fragment identifier is not fully specified, but that section says some stuff anyway. I think it should say something concrete, simply because the registration says that anything not in +json-seq is fair game for FOO/BAR+json-seq. Therefore, designers of FOO/BAR+json-seq ought to know what “holes” there are in +json-seq to play with. That includes application/geo+json+seq even though apparently there is no need for specific fragment identifiers at this time.
> May I suggest: #n[:xxx], where n is the index of the JSON item, in decimal 0-9 ASCII. It could be 0-based or 1-based, to taste. If [:xxx] is present, the xxx is the fragment identifier according to application/json (which, apparently, has no fragment identifier syntax).
> This means that anyone developing a specific media type structured as +json-seq has broad reign over any fragment identifier sequence that doesn’t start with 1-9 (or 0-9, as the case may be).
> ...or, you could say nothing about fragment identifiers. application/json-seq doesn’t say anything, and it’s getting along just fine.

again, RFC 7464 does not say anything here. i think your idea with 
providing simple indexing into the sequence is a really nice one, but i 
think the right place to define this would be the media type, not the 
suffix.

if there is a next revision of RFC 7464, then it probably should 
register the suffix and maybe it also should adopt your idea of an index 
fragment identification scheme. but to me, that's something that would 
need to be done for the media type.

thanks and cheers,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:[e-mail] |
            | http://dret.net/netdret    |
            | http://twitter.com/dret    |