Re: [webfinger] FW: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-08.txt

When it comes to JSON, because we don't have anything similar to a
namespace to key off of when parsing, a specific media type really does
help to determine if the server returned the right kind of JSON-based thing
in response to the query. I don't see a specific media type as being
critical in any way for WebFinger but it can be helpful if provided.

On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM, <chris.dent@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012, Tim Bray wrote:
>
>  I've also wondered why we don't have application/webfinger+json; seems to
>> me that having your own media-type is a strong Web best practice.  Has
>> this
>> been discussed?  -T
>>
>
> Can you point me to references to _why_ that is "best practice"?
>
> It's something I find quite annoying. It's application/json, being
> used in a webfinger context. In some other context it could be used
> for something else.
>
> In both contexts it is a JSON representation, you use JSON tools to
> process it.
>
> Having another media-type seems to just make things more noisy. Is the
> point to have some little agent sitting around being all smart because
> it can trigger imporant decision based merely on the media-type of its
> input? If that's so, I'm not sure I buy it: We wouldn't have gone to
> this resource in the first place if we weren't hoping to get webfinger
> info back.
>
> Help me understand.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Chris Dent                                   http://burningchrome.com/
>                                 [...]
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/webfinger<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger>
>