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

Re: [json] Re: Media type for JSON?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.