Re: [apps-discuss] Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On May 23, 2013, at 11:35 AM, James M Snell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> That's well and good, from everything I've seen so far in this thread,
>> the collective majority opinion can be summarized as "Ugh... Groan..
>> Another one? Really?"
>
> Just a note that this is one of the only ones that people are groaning about that has an Internet Draft and might go through the IETF consensus process. Carsten and I (maybe naively) thought that doing this in this environment, instead of say posting ephemeral specs on a web page and not having it be clear where the community fit it, was a good thing.

There's a huge world outside the IETF.  The folks working on Simple
and BSON, to take two examples, may not care about bringing their work
to us, but then, they may also be annoyed by our blindsiding them with
a standards-track binary JSON (I know, CBOR's a superset) encoding
that's not interoperable with theirs.

In particular, if there's wide deployment of one of them, why
shouldn't we pick one of them?

Should we not invite the wider JSON community to this discussion?

Nico
--