Re: [Json] JSON and int64s - any change in current best practice since I-JSON

[Pete Cordell <[e-mail]>]

On 17/01/2024 05:01, Tim Bray wrote:
> I would so so love to fix up JSON just a little bit. Lose the 
> (syntactically superfluous) commas, RFC3733 date literals, add a couple 
> of numeric types. I can dream the impossible dream.

At the risk of veering off course, I also find JSON harder to edit than 
I feel it ought to be.

I ended up defining a JSON like syntax that is stripped down but also 
allows comments and multi-line text.  I called it Line Oriented Object 
Notation (LOON) and it's a dream to use compared to manually editing JSON.

In a nutshell, for JSON like:

{
     "name" : "Pete",
     "userid" : 12,
     "privileges" : [
         {
             "directory" : "/home/pete",
             "permissions" : "rwxd"
         },
         {
             "directory" : "/bin",
             "permissions" : "rx"
         }
     ]
}

you have LOON like:

# Pete's user profile
name : Pete
userid: 12
privileges [
     {
         directory: /home/pete
         permissions: rwxd
     }
     {
         directory: /bin
         permissions: rx
     }
]

One day I hope to recast the JSON RFC to describe LOON and present it. 
Until then, there's a blog post that says a little more for those that 
might be interested:

    https://codalogic.com/blog/2023/02/30/Line-Oriented-Object_notation

Pete.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
---------------------------------------------------------------------