Re: [media-types] [art] moving forward with

[Mark Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Erik Wilde <[e-mail]> wrote:
> hello.
>
> On 2016-09-26 19:20, Mark Baker wrote:
>>
>> Ah, I hadn't forgotten all about RFC 7464. Yes, registering the suffix
>> in that light makes ample sense. Thanks, Erik.
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix seems to be
> reasonable enough that nobody has objected to it. we would like to move
> forward with this so that we can use it for a media type that we are working
> on in the GeoJSON working group.
>
> what is the best way to move forward? as requested by
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838#section-6, i have created a registration
> template here:

That's a good place to start ;)

>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-json-seq-suffix-00#section-4
>
> i am including this registration template literally to help the review
> process via [e-mail]:
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
>       Name: JSON Text Sequence
>
>       +suffix: +json-seq
>
>       References: [3]
>
>       Encoding considerations: See [3]
>
>       Fragment identifier considerations: The syntax and semantics of
>       fragment identifiers specified for +json-seq SHOULD be as
>       specified for "application/json-seq".  (At publication of this
>       document, there is no fragment identification syntax defined for
>       "application/json-seq".)
>
>          The syntax and semantics for fragment identifiers for a
>          specific "xxx/yyy+json-seq" SHOULD be processed as follows:
>
>             For cases defined in +json-seq, where the fragment
>             identifier resolves per the +json-seq rules, then process as
>             specified in +json-seq.
>
>             For cases defined in +json-seq, where the fragment
>             identifier does not resolve per the +json-seq rules, then
>             process as specified in "xxx/yyy+json-seq".
>
>             For cases not defined in +json-seq, then process as
>             specified in "xxx/yyy+json-seq".

Is this necessary? I have a couple of concerns about it that would be
tricky to explain, but seeing as there currently is no generic syntax,
could it just be removed?