Ok according to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2045 . From:
sarif@lists.oasis-open.org <
sarif@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc) Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:02 PM To: Michael Fanning <
Michael.Fanning@microsoft.com>; 'OASIS SARIF TC Discussion List' <
sarif@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: [sarif] RE: 'externalFiles' to 'externalFragments'? Thanks. I updated #182 to propose application/sarif-fragment+json . I’ll check the MIME type RFC to make sure “hyphen” is ok. From: Michael Fanning <
Michael.Fanning@microsoft.com > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:00 PM To: Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc) <
v-lgold@microsoft.com >; 'OASIS SARIF TC Discussion List' <
sarif@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: 'externalFiles' to 'externalFragments'? I like your proposal! We need to make sure we request all relevant MIME types as well, I think we require one additional one minimally for SARIF fragments. From: Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc) <
v-lgold@microsoft.com > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 11:54 AM To: Michael Fanning <
Michael.Fanning@microsoft.com >; 'OASIS SARIF TC Discussion List' <
sarif@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: 'externalFiles' to 'externalFragments'? Importance: High I I captured a proposal based on this discussion in an issue comment ; please review – thanks! From: Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc) <
v-lgold@microsoft.com > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 10:06 AM To: Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc) <
v-lgold@microsoft.com >; Michael Fanning <
Michael.Fanning@microsoft.com >; 'OASIS SARIF TC Discussion List' <
sarif@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: 'externalFiles' to 'externalFragments'? By the way, Michael and I were having this discussion in the context of working to close the existing Issue #118, “SARIF file naming convention”. We are not proposing to open a new issue. It we did decide (for example) to rename externalFiles to externalFragments, we would do it in the context of #118. Hey! Why not name it (“it” being the thing we today call a “externalFile”) sarifFragment rather than externalFragment? That is parallel to the existing sarifLog type! And it would then map most naturally to the filename extension “sarif-fragment”. Larry From:
sarif@lists.oasis-open.org <
sarif@lists.oasis-open.org > On Behalf Of Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc) Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 10:02 AM To: Michael Fanning <
Michael.Fanning@microsoft.com >; 'OASIS SARIF TC Discussion List' <
sarif@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [sarif] RE: 'externalFiles' to 'externalFragments'? “sarif-fragment” is nice because it suggests “sarif-resources” as the extension for the language-specific resource files defined elsewhere in the spec. If “-sarif” is at the end of the extension, you end up with “resources-sarif” which doesn’t read as well. From:
sarif@lists.oasis-open.org <
sarif@lists.oasis-open.org > On Behalf Of Michael Fanning Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 7:31 AM To: 'OASIS SARIF TC Discussion List' <
sarif@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [sarif] 'externalFiles' to 'externalFragments'? Larry and I were discussing a possible rename yesterday, just sanity checking this with the group. We were specifically noting that we require a naming convention to help distinguish ‘external’ files. The reason is that their only distinguishing characteristic within the file is the $scheme property, which is optional (the version property matches a root/parent SARIF file). And so a convention to name these files something like *.external.sarif would be useful. Alternately, of course, we could consider defining an entirely new extension, e.g., external-sarif. When considering either a new extension or a file naming convention, it occurred to me that the use of the term ‘fragment’ would be clearer. And so I have two questions: What would people think about using ‘externalFragments’ as a name rather than ‘externalFiles’? This would be minimally intrusive in the spec and lead to file names such as ‘example.fragment.sarif’, which is clearer than ‘example.external.sarif’. What mechanism should we prefer, a naming convention or a new extension? I,.e., ‘example.fragment.sarif’ or ‘example.fragment-sarif’? or even ‘example.sarif-fragment’ (which is entirely readable) Michael