1013Re: [json] MIME types
- May 5, 2008I would like to see one additional mime type and associated file
extension, something like text/envelope+json and ".je" - not important.
This format would be a JSON document containing an object with a well
defined container or envelope format, and of course as many subobjects
as you want to put in there.
Once you have this envelope it's easy to add new information to it that
will be ignored by old processors, and you have the full expressiveness
of JSON for all your metadata needs. I don't see why anybody would
want to deal with new mime types for JSON if a standard envelope format
Kris Zyp wrote:
> Perhaps I wasn't clear, I wasn't intending to propose that anyone needs
> to adopt a superset of JSON or add any features to JSON. I was simply
> asking how and if people like to define JSON variants (most importantly
> subsets) with MIME types. Sorry for the superset digression...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michal Migurski
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:json%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 11:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [json] MIME types
> > While lack of such marker makes it easier to embed json (json
> > encapsulation in json is trivial; in xml declaration & single-root
> > requirement make it very cumbersome to embed xml in xml) it's a pain
> > if one tries to extend markup itself.
> > That's why I suspect it might be best that json remained as is, and
> > further development was done at higher level by using what exists,
> > instead of trying to shoehorn new features at low level ("just because
> > something can be done don't mean it should").
> +1, keep it simple.
> Most of my JSON use is as a communication format between JS, Python,
> PHP, etc. There's no value here to having JS-specific features in the
> michal migurski- mike@... <mailto:mike%40stamen.com>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>