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

Re: Media type for JSON?

Expand Messages
  • Douglas Crockford
    ... I agree with MarkM on this one. JSON is not JavaScript. While it is a subset of JavaScript, its usage patterns are radically different. I think the right
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 29, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      > > JSON is more like html & xml than it is like javascript.
      > > Therefore, reasoning by precedent and analogy,
      > > I think the right answer is text/json.

      > I disagree that JSON is more like HTML and XML than like JavaScript,
      > particularly when it's specifically a subset of JavaScript.

      I agree with MarkM on this one. JSON is not JavaScript. While it is a
      subset of JavaScript, its usage patterns are radically different. I
      think the right answer is text/json.
    • Martin Cooper
      ... The usage patterns may be different, but if you read the portions of RFC 2046 that I quoted, those usage patterns still match application/json much better
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 29, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On 7/29/05, Douglas Crockford <douglas@...> wrote:
        > > > JSON is more like html & xml than it is like javascript.
        > > > Therefore, reasoning by precedent and analogy,
        > > > I think the right answer is text/json.
        >
        > > I disagree that JSON is more like HTML and XML than like JavaScript,
        > > particularly when it's specifically a subset of JavaScript.
        >
        > I agree with MarkM on this one. JSON is not JavaScript. While it is a
        > subset of JavaScript, its usage patterns are radically different. I
        > think the right answer is text/json.

        The usage patterns may be different, but if you read the portions of
        RFC 2046 that I quoted, those usage patterns still match
        application/json much better than text/json.

        --
        Martin Cooper


        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Mark Miller
        ... By the criteria you quoted, xml should be application/xml. -- Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain Cheers, --MarkM
        Message 3 of 13 , Jul 29, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Martin Cooper wrote:
          > The usage patterns may be different, but if you read the portions of
          > RFC 2046 that I quoted, those usage patterns still match
          > application/json much better than text/json.


          By the criteria you quoted, xml should be application/xml.


          --
          Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

          Cheers,
          --MarkM
        • Martin Cooper
          ... So? We re talking about JSON, not XML. Finding an example for which you disagree with the existing categorisation isn t much of a reason to not follow the
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 29, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            On 7/29/05, Mark Miller <markm@...> wrote:
            > Martin Cooper wrote:
            > > The usage patterns may be different, but if you read the portions of
            > > RFC 2046 that I quoted, those usage patterns still match
            > > application/json much better than text/json.
            >
            >
            > By the criteria you quoted, xml should be application/xml.

            So? We're talking about JSON, not XML. Finding an example for which
            you disagree with the existing categorisation isn't much of a reason
            to not follow the spec when looking for the right categorisation for
            JSON.

            --
            Martin Cooper


            >
            > --
            > Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain
            >
            > Cheers,
            > --MarkM
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.