Re: [media-types] IETF Multiple Suffixes Interim?

(BCC W3C VCWG, DIDWG, CCG)

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 5:14 AM Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> Therefore, we shouldn't say that e.g. application/did+ld+json is
> processed in a pipeline

Thanks to Orie for re-starting this discussion and the summary of
where we are, and Martin for identifying the key thing that has
over-complicated the approach to date: pipeline processing and
attempting to get rid of the suffixes registry. It's possible, but
it's not clear to me that we have the time or energy to see that
through in this iteration of the WG.

Thanks also to Mark Nottingham, who rightly noted that all of this
only comes into play when you have multiple plus signs in your media
type. I ensured that is clearly stated in the specification.

I have published a revision of the media type suffixes specification
taking all of the above into account:

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mediaman-suffixes-04.html

The diff can be viewed here:

https://github.com/ietf-wg-mediaman/suffixes/commit/007ba186400e99c46895d3091a803cb606bc811d

We were trying to do too much by specifying a processing pipeline and
how that may or may not lead to error conditions (and how to work with
those error conditions). All text related to processing pipeline stuff
has been removed from the specification.

This reduces the way an application can process a media type that
contains multiple plus signs. Either you process the full media type,
or you process it according to a matching suffix entry that you
understand in the structured syntax suffix registry. That's it, full
stop.

There is no more composition of structured syntax suffix processing
stuff going on in the spec, and that has eliminated the complexity
that we were tripping over before.

The only other thing that the spec does now is try to also remove the
repeated spec text in the structured syntax suffix registry for
fragment processing by placing it in the spec instead of duplicating
the same text over and over in the structured syntax suffix registry.
The WG will need to decide if it wants to clean up the registry given
that this text has now been moved into a single location.

I'd appreciate some reviews to see if the changes make sense to folks.
I believe, with this revision, that we're ready for Last Call, but
need further confirmation from the WG.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/

Received on Friday, 16 June 2023 11:03:20 UTC