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

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

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