- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:12:08 +0100
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Tony Hansen <tony@maillennium.att.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, www-tag@w3.org
Bjoern Hoehrmann writes:
> * Tony Hansen wrote:
>>So I've added these Fragment identifier considerations sections to the
>>suffixes that have an underlying media type registration.
>>
>> Media types using "+json" MUST accept any fragment identifiers
>> defined for "application/json". Specific media types may
>> identify additional fragment identifier considerations.
>
> This says that "+json" cannot be used for JSON types where fragment
> identifiers are of any concern since any future specification of the
> application/json type may override such registrations in incompatible
> ways. This seems to be missing the point of why we would have "+json"
> to begin with.
Or, it implies any update to a syntax schema registration such as
application/json has a responsibility to its "deployed base". Comes
with the territory.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Saturday, 21 April 2012 15:12:59 UTC