Docs mentioning NDJSON should be JSONL?

[polarathene]

Related feature requests + implementation:

• JSONL (Nov 2020): support conversion of jsonl content to multi-document yaml content #494 (comment)
• NDJSON (Aug 2022 - references supporting an input stream): How to convert an NDJSON stream to a YAML stream? #1279 (comment)

---

Describe the bug

At a glance, it seems that JSONL is more relevant format than NDJSON? yq docs may want to update to reflect that?

• June 2015 - Table comparing ndjson to JSON Lines.
• Oct 2022 - Owner of ndjson domain encourages deprecating ndjson repo in favor of redirecting to jsonlines.org.
• July 2022 - concerns have been expressed with ndjson maintainer activity being low.
• Feb 2023 - Overview of various similar formats related to JSON lines/streaming: jsonlines.org and ndjson.org wardi/jsonlines#22 (comment) (also references Wikipedia article on JSON streaming)
• April 2023 - There is work on RFC for JSONL with a application/jsonl mime type.
• Oct 2023 - http://ndjson.org/ is no longer valid (domain expired).

---

Docs demonstrate parsing multi-line entries (but this is not valid input according to spec?)

That said NDJSON does have an official spec where JSONL does not yet? 🤷‍♂️

It's implied that NDJSON is considered valid in multiline context due to this yq docs example. However that appears to be against spec? (related discussion). As noted by the June 2015 table and the spec, only empty lines are considered valid (optional), but a JSON document should be self-contained within a single line?

If updating docs to refer to JSONL instead, the example like NDJSON isn't considered valid, but the example could remain; It should just mention while it's not valid to the format, yq supports multi-line JSONL entries?

[mikefarah]

Right I see - thanks for doing all the research. I'll make some updates - for now I think it should mention both.