Re: [media-types] Rethinking Media Types

> > From: Rahul Gupta
> > At the very least, I find media-types are inadequate along two dimensions:
> > 
> > -   Composability: A complex format might be constructed from simpler formats. (This is separate from composite media-types like multipart which are intended for enclosing multiple representations in a single message, although composite media-types can be a possible mechanism for composition of a single representation that built out of multiple media-types).
> > -   Specificity: The contained data is described by progression in specificity of formats intended for some specific purpose.
> > 
> > There is certainly interplay between the dimensions. Case in point is the recent intention of W3C Verifiable Credentials WG to register, for example, `application/vc+sd-jwt` where a Verified Credential is augmented with Selective Disclosures, which are together packaged in a JSON Web Token format. The use of "+" and "-", even if standardized by convention, seems a really strange way to communicate this information. Or the recent request by 3GPP for 32 media-type registrations...yikes!

Why should media-types be modified/extended to solve these issues?
Are media-types the right place to add this complexity and combinatorial
explosion of types?  (I do not think so.)

Why isn't there a single application/vnd.3gpp.self-describing media type?
That single media type could be a simple JSON object containing two
elements, the media description (which would be one of the 32+
media-type registrations), followed by the data?  (Instead of JSON, it
could also be a 3gpp-specific format.)

Something similar could be done for JWT composability.
application/json could easily contain such JSON.
Why does the *media-type* need to describe the JSON object like an XML
DTD or ASN.1?  Why not define your JSON object to describe its contents?

Cheers, Glenn

Received on Friday, 10 January 2025 20:06:18 UTC