I was hoping someone else would weigh in here. But I guess not.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> You guys are over-thinking it. Simply state this format is ASF-wide
> and be done with it.
Okay but should we ask anyone before we go and start using something
like application/vnd.apache.pubsub+json? Daniel seemed to think we
shouldn't use the apache namespace without talking to operations.
> Media types are not born every month. More like one every few years.
> I'm even gonna guess most aren't registered with the IANA (tho I
> suggest we register ours).
That's a fair point.
> So? That's what the registered definition is for: to explain the media type.
No that is not the purpose of the registration. It's to provide a
consistent unambiguous name for a format. The fact that it is
descriptive is a side effect of our desire to make them human
readable. Media-Types could have just as easily been opaque numbers.
> Are these obvious?
> Not really. But we just started using them.
Yes assuming they were defined when Subversion was under the
Subversion Corporation. Interestingly they appear not to be
registered (at least they aren't on the IANA list).
> Anyway, you suggested:
> and I suggested:
> cuz we don't need the -subversion in there. And the -stream will be
> inherent in the format. As you state: it is also generic, so no need
> for svnpubsub or whatever.
> For existing "conventions" (for whatever that's worth):
> I'll note that a vnd.apache does not exist. So it's empirically true
> that per-project naming for conflict resolution isn't worthwhile.
The desire to include the top level project name in there was to avoid
stepping on any toes. If that's not an issue then we can remove it.
I'm not so sure we can clearly drop the -stream, because technically
SVNPubSub has two formats. The format between the server and the
commit-hook and the format between the subscribers and the server.
The commit-hook/server format is unambiguously JSON, so we're not
bothering to talk about it. Without it I think which format you're
talking about is ambiguous.
> (and we also don't need/want a media type that is freakishly long)
Received on 2013-06-02 04:07:48 CEST