[occi-wg] Content Negotiation: Alternative Formats

[Sam Johnston]

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Richard Davies <richard at daviesmail.org>wrote:

>
> > * AtomPub: Atom meets REST or "a simple HTTP-based protocol for
> >   creating and updating web resources"
>
> I do feel that this is the combination of a meta-model (AtomPub, decision
> 3)
> and a syntax (XML, decision 4), which are logically independent, as
> evidenced by the existence of both GData-JSON (same meta-model, different
> syntax) and POX (same syntax, different meta-model).
>

Good/interesting observation. Remember there's been
talk<http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2007/01/15/application-atom-json>about
application/atom+json and the
suggestion<http://intertwingly.net/blog/2007/01/15/application-atom-json#c1169312821>to
create an IETF Internet Draft about it.


> > * JSON: JavaScript Object Notation or "a lightweight computer data
> >   interchange format"
>
> So I would equally recommend that we distinguish GData-JSON from POJSON,
> where
> POJSON is a direct rendering of nouns, verbs and attributes, by analogy to
> POX.
>

I thought this was implicit, but let's call them POJ and POX. While both
have useful applications (thinking web development) neither would be a
particularly good primary format... before you know it you'll have stuff
like ETags, Content Types, Links, Categories and a bunch of other stuff that
will make you wish you'd just let someone else do the dirty work.

Sam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090513/615ec3ef/attachment.html