[occi-wg] Content Negotiation: Alternative Formats

[Sam Johnston]

Ok so let's try to get some clarity around the various alternative formats
and use sensible names for them now on - we can do a lot better than "Sam's
GData XML" vs "My Simple JSON". Here's a few that come to mind:

   - *AtomPub* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_%28standard%29>: Atom
   meets REST or "*a simple HTTP-based protocol for creating and updating
   web resources*"
   - *CSV <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma-separated_values>*: Comma
   Separated Variable ala GoGrid, useful for reporting, asset registries, etc.
   - *[X]HTML <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML>*: Web interface for end
   users, optionally with semantic markup
   - *JSON* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON>: JavaScript Object Notation
   or "*a lightweight computer data interchange format*"
   - *PDF <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF>*: Portable Documentation
   Format, useful for documentation and reporting
   - *POX* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_Old_XML>: Plain Old XML
   - *TXT*: Plain Text API (e.g. "KEY VALUE", "X|Y|Z", etc.)

I'm hoping we agree to one required core format and then leave it up to
implementors to decide what they feel like rendering.

Sam

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard Davies <richard.davies at elastichosts.com>
Date: Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Subject: [occi-wg] Format: 4 distinct decisions
To: occi-wg at ogf.org


* Decisions 3 and 4 are independent.

Sam's GData XML http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000381.html
is 3b with 4a.

My Simple JSON http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-May/000523.html
is 3a with 4b.

But equally it would be possible to specify GData JSON (3b, 4b) or Simple
XML (3a, 4a).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090513/1ac12370/attachment.html