Re: [Json] On flat vs nested JSON encoding style

[Anders Rundgren <[e-mail]>]

On 2016-02-05 17:27, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> I fully buy into the efficiency aspect of the nested encoding style (which I
>> honestly had never thought of), but when it comes to "hard to follow",
>> predictable
>> serialization a la ES6 seems like a more universal solution since this also
>> sucks:
>>    {
>>       "city": "Paris",
>>       "name": "John Doe",
>>       "country": "FR",
>>       "zip": 245333
>>    }
>>
>> ES6 serialization and the nested encoding style scheme can easily be
>> combined, hopefully bringing out the best of both worlds!
>
> There are probably valid use cases for a canonical serialization
> format. And that is probably more viable in JSON than in XML.

I have gradually lost faith in standardization as the best way forward
for stuff that is close to applications.  It takes too long time, and
there are usually multiple roads to (virtually) the same goal.  The IMO
worst thing is that WGs do not generally care about changes in the market,
or the availability of new technology although this could motivate charter
updates and sometimes even abandoning the work-item altogether.

And if you are Google you can do set standards for the rest of the world
which also makes standardization anything but a level playing field.

By building on a Google standard (V8) for JSON normalization (not canonicalization),
I feel quite safe that this concept (rather than my signature definition verbatim),
will become a de-facto standard.  That's perfectly satisfactory for my work which
simply is helping the payment industry converting to JSON.

Anders
https://cyberphone.github.io/openkeystore/resources/docs/jcs.html#ECMAScript_Compatibility_Mode