I'm looking for a high-level sanity check if you would.
I've been trying to see a way forward through a nest of issues around two concrete proposals:
1. Adding "content negotiation" to the request object, allowing automatical parsing of different content types, such as JSON, as well as allowing that to work for all request methods, rather than just POST.
2. Modernising the API for the request object, adding attributes such as `request.data`, and `request.query_params`, etc., rather than the uppercase POST, GET, and so on.
The first is a major stepping stone towards having (JSON or other) API support in core — the "merge DRF into core" request that comes up frequently. (The other main side of that would be a review of serialization and forms, in light of developments such as Pydantic, attrs/cattrs, and django-readers, but that is **not** on topic here.) This was first suggested in 2011, but has made little progress in that time. 
The second Adam Johnson proposed 2020, and was nearly merged bar Mariusz
**blinking** at the size of the distruption, particularly for documentation
throughout the community, for no change in behaviour. 
There was an inconclusive discussion about whether we right there but, at the time I linked the modernisation to the content negotiation issue, as the feature needed to pay for the change.
Digging further into the history, with a mind to move these issues forward, having **not** merged Adam's patch first time gives us the needed pathway forward, I hope.
I think there have been two reasons the content negotiation suggestion has not progressed:
1. It's been all or nothing. Numerous times it's been requested to **just** add JSON handling, but that's been bounced back to the full proposal, adding customisable parsers and so on, which has then stalled.
2. There's a backwards compatibility concern, particularly with multipart request bodies, where currently you'd get a string, which you'd then try to parse yourself, not expecting an already parsed dictionary, for example.
The way around the backwards compatibility concern is to introduce a new code
pathway at `request.data` that handles things in the new way, whilst
deprecating `request.POST`, which could either be removed or become an alias to
`request.data` at the end of the deprecation period. (Given the behaviour
change, and django-upgrade ongoing development, I'd lean now toward removal, I
In order to get this done, I'd like to introduce this **without also solving the pluggable parsers issue** in the first version.
That is, I would like to add `request.data` to provide parsed data from the request body, for all request methods, together with `application/json` content type handling (and multipart parsing for `application/json` parts as well) **but** I would like to leave the configurable parsers step for a later iteration.
I think this would give most of the benefit, and allow us to (finally) make forward steps here. My hope it that this is addressable before the 4.2 feature freeze in January, but if not, OK, it hits 5.0 — at least it's in.
Folks needing other content types can parse request.body as they'd need to do now.
Having a list of request.parsers, configurable in e.g. View.setup(), or a middleware, or even a custom request class — essentially at any point before accessing request.data — would be the follow-up. Clearly, this would be good to have, but I feel like we've blocked on it so long, finding a way forward that allows it to be deferred would be sensible. (Prefetch evolved...)
Matching ``request.data``, if Adam will pick it up, the modernised request API would be
delightful. (The schedule leaves room for the code changes to come before the
documentation updates if needed.)
Does this seem like a reasonable plan? Thanks