Re: If not JSON, what then ?

["Poul-Henning Kamp" <[e-mail]>]

--------
In message <[e-mail]>, Nicolas Mailhot 
writes:

>IMHO it would be way simpler to specify that the dicts used in
>http are ordered rather than invent another representation

We sort of already did that, only we never formally declared
that they were dicts or what the datamodel actually looked like.

My document was an attempt to do that.

No matter what we decide, we cannot change how JSON defined their
dicts, and consequently whatever we do needs to be mapped into JSON,
python, $lang's data models somehow.

>Anyway, please do not use < or > web people have enough tag
>soup problems in html (that Will be used with http)

They are part of the serialization, like ',' and ';' and they would
not be visible in any context near HTML.

>If you're ready to invent binary representations it's way
> imple to specify utf8 as encoding than fall again on multiple
> encoding trap which instead of helping anyone means everyone is
> incompatible with everyone else in subtle way

Please elaborate, I have no idea what your are talking about here.

>Finaly , is hostile to everyone that writes numbers unlike the USA

We already use ',' as the field delimiter in HTTP headers, and we
should *never* have to take I18N/NLS into account to *parse* a
HTTP header.

I18N/NLS may be necessary to *interpret* the HTTP header, but it
should not be necessary to *parse* the HTTP header.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[e-mail]         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.