IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] hildjj/cbor-map-entries: Explicit Map datatype for CBOR, in array format

Kio Smallwood <kio@mothers-arms.co.uk> Thu, 18 February 2021 13:57 UTC

Return-Path: <kio@mothers-arms.co.uk>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6DE93A1261 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 05:57:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B1zmi3CHh7eh for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 05:57:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from b-painless.mh.aa.net.uk (b-painless.mh.aa.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30::52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D9EA3A125F for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 05:57:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a-webmail.thn.aa.net.uk ([2001:8b0:62::22] helo=webmail.aa.net.uk) by painless-b.tch.aa.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <kio@mothers-arms.co.uk>) id 1lCjnu-0004Vm-45; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:57:14 +0000
Received: from cpc105076-sgyl40-2-0-cust233.18-2.cable.virginm.net ([82.4.24.234]) by webmail.aa.net.uk with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:57:00 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_0535d4761f17f1e0c94c91767706360c"
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:57:00 +0000
From: Kio Smallwood <kio@mothers-arms.co.uk>
To: worley@ariadne.com
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, cbor@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <87zh02kpf5.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
References: <87zh02kpf5.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Message-ID: <0faeb37c36d5b1f40c37f82e62be1be9@mothers-arms.co.uk>
X-Sender: kio@mothers-arms.co.uk
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.16
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/R7GIvQVW7N4rS4JCVmKbHcJwo8c>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] hildjj/cbor-map-entries: Explicit Map datatype for CBOR, in array format
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:57:22 -0000

Hi Dale, 

I have made a similar proposal here:
https://github.com/Sekenre/cbor-ordered-map-spec/blob/master/CBOR_Ordered_Map.md


I've tried to explain the rationale that it is adding a straightforward
option for serializing a native data-type in Python 3 and other
languages that support order-preserving key-value maps. 

Cheers, 

Kio Smallwood 

On 2021-02-18 3:47, worley@ariadne.com wrote:

> Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> writes: 
> 
>> Do we agree that an order-preserving map occurs often enough to
>> warrant a 1+1 (or even 1+0?) tag?
> 
> I may have missed the discussion, but do we have a clear defition of
> "order-preserving"?  Naively, that seems to include every issue about
> how you compare values ever asked.
> 
> Dale
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email