Re: [media-types] Media subtypes containing "+"

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

[Re-sending:  I originally sent this response some time ago, but I'm not seeing 
it on the mailing list - I did respond to the prompt to confirm submission from 
a non-subscribed email address.]



Hi!

I think this is a useful contribution, thanks!

I have three comments:


1. In the discussion of suffix registrations, the draft says "each subset of 
suffixes, starting from the right-most suffix, MUST be individually registered 
as a subtype in its own right" - I think this is incorrect use of the term 
"subtype" as used by the MIME specification.  RFC6838 uses the phrase "media 
type name suffix" and/or "Structured Syntax Suffix Registration Template".

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6838.html#section-6

It's not clear to me what the best term would be, but I'd probably aim for 
something like "media type name suffix" or "subtype suffix" if that's clear from 
context.


2. I think an example would help to show what is being proposed (I think the 
description is clear enough, but it's always good to have something concrete to 
cross-check against).  In particular with reference to registration of multiple 
subtype suffixes used together.

E.g. in the case of refinements of application/ld+json (per 
https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-syntax/#iana-considerations), one could imagine 
more specific types defined; e.g.

     application/invoice+ld+json

Per the description, I think this would require the following suffixes have been 
registered:

     +json
     +ld+json

But not:

     +ld

And if this data may be offered with alternative RDF syntaxes, such as, e.g.:

     application/invoice+ld+rdf+xml

then:

     +xml
     +rdf+xml
     +ld+rdf+xml


3. A nit:  the draft makes reference to and uses RFC2119 language.  It is usual 
in RFC documents I've seen to explicitly call this out in the document.  E.g.

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6838.html#section-1.2


#g


On 30/11/2020 14:49, rhiaro wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As requested, we have a draft which is an update to RFC 6838, so that we
> can discuss something concrete around multiple subtype suffixes:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-w3cdidwg-media-types-with-multiple-suffixes/
> 
> Does anybody have a few moments to review this, so we can work on moving
> this forward?
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Amy
> 
> On 24.10.2020. 16:35, rhiaro wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>>> Is someone from the W3C willing to put such a draft together?
>> I'm a member of the W3C DID WG and have at long last drafted the update
>> to RFC6838 that has been discussed in this thread:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-w3cdidwg-media-types-with-multiple-suffixes/
>>
>> I hope I have captured the intent of the comments so far in this thread
>> and used the correct language. Any and all feedback on refining this is
>> gratefully received.
>>
>> Amy
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> media-types mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> media-types mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types
> 

-- 
Graham Klyne
mailto:[e-mail]
Skype/Twitter: @gklyne