- From: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:35:03 -0600
- To: "Jamie Lokier" <jamie@shareable.org>, "Robert Brewer" <fumanchu@aminus.org>
- Cc: "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> If it's only used with the "application/json" media-type, and it can > define that "items" always refers to _array_ items (i.e. numbered) and > the JSON _top-level_ object is an array, then I have no such concern. I agree, it should only be applicable when the top-level entity is an array. > I'm a bit surprised that the top-level object in a JSON request would > be an array, though. For round-trip minimisation in AJAX applications > isn't it usual to send a bit of auxiliary metadata, or a few objects > together, and therefore the top-level JSON object tends to be an > object (i.e. several named data items) with one of its members being > an array, rather than the top-level object being an array itself? I am trying to move away from that approach, moving metadata to headers (ironically the offset and total count are the most common metadata items, and these are handled by the Content-Range header), allowing the actual content to be a "pure" representation of the resource, and therefore an array is the most natural top-level construct when requesting a collection of objects. Kris
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 14:37:04 UTC