Subject: [media-types] Following: Re: Proposed media type registration for YAML

From: "Florent Viard (Sodria)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 20:49:16 +0100

This is a message following the thread:
"Re: [media-types] Proposed media type registration for YAML"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/U6gTWZ55YG-lgwFLFA9hU9g4_qs/
(as i'm not able to reply to the original thread)

Hi Ben,

Around 5 years ago, you proposed to add a type for YAML on the media-types
list of the IETF.
Sadly, since then, nothing has changed.

What do you (or anyone else) think about going on with this and so finally
having an officially registered type?

I'm not affiliated, related or expert in YAML or anything IETF related, but
what you suggested as content for the registration form looks good to me.

If you ask me, I think that the type name should simply be
"application/yaml".
A standard type, and not a vendor type.
There are no RFC for YAML(?), but from what I can see, in the existing
registered type list, quite a few of them don't have an associated RFC.

One last bit of information, I noticed that YAML was already added a long
time ago in the "shared-mime-info" db as "application/x-yaml".

Thank you,

Florent

---

From: Ben Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 10:26:20 +0000 (GMT)

> having an officially registered type?

The one use case I had for it vanished (replaced with JSON as I recall), 
so given the objections to my proposal I dropped it.

-- 
Ben Harris, University of Cambridge Information Services.  Tel: (01223) 748438