Re: [core] SenML JSON syntax (with multiple base objects)

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Michael Koster wrote:
> Is the proposed format simpler because it removes the need to have an
> “e” tag and instead associates a data object with a base object by
> position in the array?

Old SenML has the problem that there is no way in JSON (or CBOR, which
is modeled on JSON here) to ensure that the base values come before the
measurements.  This has to be an array unless it's OK to force an
implementation to keep the measurements until finally the base values
come through.

The "simplification" that has been proposed today is that the clear
delineation between base values and measurements would be lost and an
implementation has to examine each element of the array whether it is a
base object or a measurement.  I have no idea how that simplifies
things, except for the superficial property of having fewer brackets.
To the contrary, making the structure very explicit is a recipe that
allows very simple implementations.

Grüße, Carsten