W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: issue 85 - range unit extensions

From: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:35:03 -0600
Message-ID: <0c5701c90d09$174b08f0$4200a8c0@kris>
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.

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2008 14:37:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:37 UTC