> > On Jan 31, 2018, at 2:44 PM, Keith Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > You don't violate 27 years of practice based on any number of tests that
> > this WG is capable of doing, just to avoid defining two content-types.
> I remain quite puzzled as to the nature of the violation.
> All I see is a new media type that takes an optional parameter
> which specifies that the content is gzip compressed.
> The new media type has no legacy consumers, and is not suitable
> for inline display by MUAs. The data is intended for aggregation
> and machine analysis alongside reports from other senders.
> I fail to see any interoperability concern. Perhaps, I'm missing
> something. Please explain.
The +json suffix is defined to mean that the content consists of JSON,
and can be parsed as such, independent of any understanding of the
rest of the media type name or its parameters.
So unless you have a time machine and can go back and change the rules defining
+json, structured syntax suffixes, content type parameters, etc. this is a
nonstarter.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
