Re: [apps-discuss] draft-saintandre-json-namespaces-00 comments

FWIW, I'd like to go on the record with my opinion that this work is
misguided.  This is a solution looking for a problem.   Clearly, a
robust JSON-based protocol SHOULD have a MustIgnore policy for things
it don't understand. And if I were putting things into a JSON message
that was to be tied to my software, it'd look like

{
    "size" : 23,
    "name" : "foo"
    "com.textuality.inferential-interfluidity" : 42
}

I think there are better ways to spend our time than on designing
something that really is not needed.

 -T

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Mark Baker wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>>> On Nov 8, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Mark Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://json-ld.org
>>>
>>>
>>> I would prefer that the output of this work was much, much simpler than this.
>>
>> JSON-LD lets the people who need URI-grounded names have them, but at
>> the same time presents enough of a barrier to discourage those who
>> don't need them from using them.
>
> Great! Then let those people adopt it. I would prefer that the output of *this work* in the IETF be much, much simpler than JSON-LD.
>
>>  The last thing JSON needs is the
>> simple equivalent of xmlns.
>
> JSON doesn't need anything: JSON-using communities do. They should have good, simple, standardized tools.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>