[GeoJSON] Unique media type for GeoJSON?

[Chris Metcalf]

I like it. HAL was the model I was thinking of mimicking.

Thanks,
Chris


On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Sean Gillies <sean.gillies at gmail.com> wrote:

> Update: based on a look at HAL and JSON API, I've come up with a draft for
> fields to go into the IANA's registration form:
>
>
> https://github.com/geojson/draft-geojson/blob/master/media-type/registration.md
> https://github.com/geojson/draft-geojson/issues/24
>
>
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Sean Gillies <sean.gillies at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> application/json+geojson would go against the grain of media types that
>> are already out there:
>>
>>     application/vnd.github+json (GitHub)
>>     application/vnd.api+json (JSON API)
>>     application/vnd.collection+json (
>> http://amundsen.com/media-types/collection/)
>>
>> We could register application/vnd.geo+json with IANA (following
>> instructions at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838) which looks
>> straightforward. We could add application/geo+json to the geojson I-D (
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-butler-geojson/) but then we're
>> blocked until that makes it to RFC. I think I prefer the former.
>>
>> Any advice on the above, Erik?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Chris Metcalf <chris.metcalf at socrata.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> We're building out an API that outputs both our own JSON format as well
>>> as GeoJSON, and we allow clients to negotiate formats using the HTTP Accept
>>> header.
>>>
>>> However, since most implementations seem to use application/json as the
>>> mimetype for GeoJSON, we would not properly be able to differentiate a
>>> client's desires using headers alone.
>>>
>>> It looks like there has been some discussion around defining a mimetype
>>> or profile for GeoJSON. Has that gotten anywhere?
>>>
>>>
>>> http://lists.geojson.org/htdig.cgi/geojson-geojson.org/2013-June/000808.html
>>>
>>> http://lists.geojson.org/htdig.cgi/geojson-geojson.org/2013-June/000809.html
>>>
>>> http://lists.geojson.org/htdig.cgi/geojson-geojson.org/2012-October/000683.html
>>>
>>> We're currently planning on using "application/json+geojson" for GeoJSON
>>> output, but I'd prefer to go with whatever already has more adoption.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Chris Metcalf
>>> Director of Platform
>>> chris.metcalf (at) socrata.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GeoJSON mailing list
>>> GeoJSON at lists.geojson.org
>>> http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sean Gillies
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sean Gillies
>
> _______________________________________________
> GeoJSON mailing list
> GeoJSON at lists.geojson.org
> http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geojson.org/pipermail/geojson-geojson.org/attachments/20140507/87b3ee6a/attachment-0005.htm>