Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1014Re: MIME types

Expand Messages
  • Stephen M. McKamey
    May 6 7:17 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      No offense, but I think the replies thus far have missed Kris'
      point. Kris is trying to get opinions on additional MIME types for
      specific applications of JSON. These aren't necessarily messaging
      envelopes and are still platform-agnostic. These are situations
      where JSON is the format but the structure is important. Examples
      from the XML world:

      - ATOM: "application/atom+xml"
      - XHTML: "application/xhtml+xml"
      - XSLT: "application/xslt+xml"
      - SVG: "image/svg+xml"

      As you can see, these are all valid XML formats but it makes sense
      due to their profileration to give them a MIME type that allows
      better assumption of a subset of XML. I wouldn't want to interpret
      SVG as an XHTML document and such it is nice to be able to
      communicate between client-server the "types" that are accepted.

      As I see it, opinions on this will more or less fall into three main
      camps:

      1) avoid MIME variants at all costs
      2) standardize and use for every standardized variant
      3) standardize and use sparingly where justified

      There is the strict purist/minimalist perspective which would suggest
      #1. This has the advantage of remaining simple, pure and keeps JSON
      as just JSON. I can respect that. And judging by Kris' question he
      is probably okay with that as well if that is the group concensus.

      There are circumstances that #2 or #3 would be nice however. For
      instance when I make a request for JsonML, it is nice to be able to
      inform the server that as a client I can accept a JsonML response
      (and in response that the format is actually JsonML and not just JSON
      data which must be processed differently). This is a more specific
      requirement than just being able to parse JSON. Essentially JSON
      data needs to be in a particular structure or it doesn't make sense
      to a JsonML builder.

      Now that being said, the risk of opening this Pandora's Box is that
      every developer and their mom might begin creating MIME types for
      every piece of ad hoc JSON data. Granted if we went with #3, we
      could just rely on IANA to police the JSON MIME type horizon. As it
      is, in order to officially have a "application/XXXX+json" MIME, you
      have to have a formalized standard and they have to accept your
      application. See [ http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/ ]
      for more info.

      My only real fear is that if we don't pick a standard of some kind
      then we run into the issues where incompatibility makes the feature
      useless. Initially JavaScript itself suffered from this issue until
      it was later better standardized (see RFC-4329) but this caused
      confusion and incompatibility for years.

      My suggestion would be option #3 with IANA policing the
      official "application/XXXX+json" MIME space, but also some standard
      set in place for "X-" MIME types. For instance a JsonML MIME type
      isn't official, so technically it should be
      "x-application/jsonml+json" rather than "application/jsonml+json".
      This is the official way of "experimentally" creating a MIME type.

      I hope this makes sense and that we can come to some sort of
      consensus.

      smm

      --- In json@yahoogroups.com, "kriszyp" wrote:
      >
      > I wanted to see if there was any prevailing consensus on if and how
      > JSON subsets and alternatives should be denoted with MIME types.
      There
      > are a growing number of JSON subsets like JSON-RPC, JSONT, JsonML,
      > JSON Schema, etc. There may be benefits in being able to define
      which
      > subset is begin used as a MIME type. XML has used a subtype+xml
      > convention, and I noticed that Stephen McKamey is using this
      precedent
      > to suggest denoting JsonML as "application/jsonml+json". I am
      > perfectly fine with using this convention, I just wanted to see if
      > others felt this was the way to go, or if it is preferable to do
      more
      > "minor" subtyping that would not suggest a need for IANA
      registration
      > like "application/json; rpc", or something like that.
      >
      > I am also curious if there any thoughts about JSON supersets. There
      > have been little efforts to create any formal proposals in this
      area,
      > but I don't think it is totally uncommon to use additional
      JavaScript
      > constructs for JSON-esque data, and postel's law application to JSON
      > almost invariably means allowing for additional JavaScript defined
      > flexibility (non-quoted keys, comments, etc). One could think of
      > JavaScript expressions as a type unto themselves, the true superset
      of
      > JSON (JavaScript itself is not actually a correct superset of JSON
      > because JSON is not valid JavaScript by itself, it must be enclosed
      in
      > paranthesis to make it a JavaScript expression). Generally
      JavaScript
      > libraries that don't do validation before an eval (Dojo and many
      > others) are actually full JavaScript expression acceptors, and
      > non-JavaScript libraries and JavaScript libraries that do validation
      > (like json.org's library) would be only JSON acceptors. I am
      wondering
      > if MIME type definition might be valuable here as well (providers
      > would know if they can include comments, for example).
      >
      > Anyway, I am not really making any proposals, just curious it there
      > are prevailing feelings towards MIME types for defining different
      JSON
      > formats.
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Kris
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic