W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Feedback on Internet Media Types and the Web

From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:35:23 -0700
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20110111203523.40a5603b.eric@bisonsystems.net>
Larry Masinter wrote:
>
> I didn't add anything to the document about +json, because I don't
> really understand what the nature of the problem is.  My guess is that
> there is a segment of people (who? where?) who want to use MIME types
> ending in +json and somehow these haven't gotten registered?
> 

Yes, for example:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg01062.html

However, due to the lack of a +json suffix, it's impossible to search
the registry to see what types are based on JSON -- quite easy to do
with types based on XML -- so there's no way to tell how many media
types based on JSON exist, but it's likely that their creators would
all have preferred +json (if they didn't start by trying to register
their types using that suffix, before changing the identifier to one
with a chance of approval).

>
> I think there was some work involved in setting up +xml, and there
> are still problems with +xml types, but is there a document describing
> +json MIME types that has been rejected?
> 

No, the problem is that RFC 4627, unlike 3023, never defined such use.
So RFC 4627bis is required, in addition to Ned's suggested change to
RFC 4288 to establish a suffix registry.  Folks just assume suffixes
are allowed, due to the proliferation of +xml types.

So what's needed in your draft, is a point about a suffix registry,
rather than anything about +json per se.

-Eric
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 03:35:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:29 GMT