Register a media-type with IANA about documentation

[maks]

Yes, since it's a specific json schema, makes sense to do this.

[gliechtenstein]

I can understand this is meaningful theoretically, but I am not yet understanding how this can be immediately beneficial to anyone in a practical manner at the moment. Maybe if you could share a specific hypothetical scenario where this makes sense, it would help me better understand.

I am asking specifically in the context of what Jasonette is today. Maybe in the future it will grow into something where having its own content-type will be meaningful but today no Jasonette user has problem with the lack of content-type problem. They simply create a separate JSON endpoint for returning the JASON markup and that's that.

Also regarding your comment on "a JASON representation of the same resource", but I am not sure this is the right way to think about this. For example if we think about a typical web app, it consists of Javascript files, CSS files, and an HTML document. When a website loads it makes several requests each with its own content-type (text/css, text/javascript, text/html).

Coming back to Jasonette, the power of Jasonette is it lets you describe equivalents of all of the above in JSON. We describe action (equivalent to text/javascript) in JSON, We describe styles (equivalent to text/css) in JSON, we also describe the view itself $jason.body (equivalent to text/html) in JSON. And on top of that we have mixins which lets you merge all these different formats together, which blurs the line even further. The whole point of Jasonette is there is a single unified markup type that lets you express every aspect of an app. So a content type like application/vnd.jason+json doesn't really do it justice in my opinion.

Overall, I feel like trying to categorize what Jasonette's markup is at this point will only constrain its potential going forward.

But like I said, maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Please let me know if I'm missing something.