Re: [rpat] Author request to use sourcecode with type set to "jsonpath"

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

What do we currently do for message/sipfrag? (See rfc34320)

This should follow that pattern. (And it argues for using the mime type).

RjS

On 2/1/24 6:45 PM, Alanna Paloma wrote:
> Greetings RPAT,
>
> Please see the request below to add "jsonpath" to the list of preferred values for
> sourcecode type (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt). The authors
> would like to use this type in Sections 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.7, and 2.4.8 and
> Appendix B.1 of RFC-to-be 9535 (draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-21).
>
>> 23) <!-- [rfced] We see type="JSONPath" is used for some of the sourcecode elements
>> in this document. This is not included in our current list of preferred
>> values; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt.
>> Please review the list and let us know which value to use for "type".
>> If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to suggest
>> additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable to leave the
>> "type" attribute not set.
>> —>
> Carsten (author):
>> One of us believes the sourcecode-type should be application/jsonpath.
>> But as long as we don’t use media-type names, we probably should shorten this to jsonpath.
>> (§ 3.1 does not suggest a filename extension, which would be a natural candidate. JSONPath is uncharacteristically mixed case, and “jsonpath” (lower case) is closest to what has been done to other sourcecode-types.)
> In your opinion, is this an acceptable addition?
>
> Best regards,
> RFC Editor/ap