microformats2-mime-type: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(new page) |
(note adoption in the wild of one particular option) |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
* application/microformats2+json | * application/microformats2+json | ||
* application/mf2+json | * application/mf2+json | ||
** Appears to have some adoption in the wild: https://indieweb.org/application/mf2+json | |||
* application/uf2+json | * application/uf2+json | ||
Revision as of 18:45, 6 August 2020
This page is for discussing the potential benefits and disadvantages of registering a MIME type for microformats2.
Potential MIME types
Note: None of these are officially registered MIME types. Until the IETF registers the MIME type, it is not official.
- application/microformats+json
- application/microformats2+json
- application/mf2+json
- Appears to have some adoption in the wild: https://indieweb.org/application/mf2+json
- application/uf2+json
Advantages
- if a user is using content negotiation, one URL can have both a microformats2 JSON representation (which is simply the parsed content of what the text/html or application/xhtml+xml view contains) and a site or domain specific JSON representation of their own (commonly used for APIs)
- it provides a naming structure for other future formats that have (close to) bidirectional conversion support with the semantics of JSON (e.g. YAML, BSON, Apache Avro, Thrift) - we cannot assume that JSON will be around forever or that it will suit all use cases even if it seems like it currently is the best choice
Disadvantages
- some HTTP libraries (e.g. Python's requests library) will use application/json to auto-parse JSON, but the routine that auto-parses JSON will not be activated on custom MIME types