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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 05 February 2016 07:41 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E94C71A009F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 23:41:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 D9XKleb4LImx for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 23:41:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (relay5-d.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:c:538::197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CCA51A009E for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 23:41:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mfilter35-d.gandi.net (mfilter35-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.166]) by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9435941C09C; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 08:41:24 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter35-d.gandi.net
Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.197]) by mfilter35-d.gandi.net (mfilter35-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ArhRVSEgcytD; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 08:41:23 +0100 (CET)
X-Originating-IP: 93.199.254.229
Received: from nar.local (p5DC7FEE5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.199.254.229]) (Authenticated sender: cabo@cabo.im) by relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF1FA41C089; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 08:41:22 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <56B45220.7080602@tzi.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 08:41:20 +0100
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+LwirhVcmUkdfyA3WKe_W747JTWNF1Ht2Nr8NJdDxOFCJOw@mail.gmail.com> <56B36D15.1030306@gmail.com> <56B370A1.1050508@tzi.org> <56B373B8.7040305@gmail.com> <20160205001717.GC2997@mercury.ccil.org> <CAMm+Lwg4iqKtUjX+gw2zMu6A-fRc7_MRT14R3n670gBzMtdP9Q@mail.gmail.com> <56B43FCE.6080408@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <56B43FCE.6080408@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/6OWKeKdRCnFt_zDb9AIfCyMLKYE>
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] On flat vs nested JSON encoding style
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/json/>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 07:41:28 -0000

Anders Rundgren wrote:
> 18 months

JSON has been around for more than a decade.  It would take another
decade for a change that goes so deep into the fundamentals to become
widespread (and sufficiently debugged* on enough platforms to become
reliable).

Wake me up when, say, ArduinoJson supports your form of canonicalization.

Grüße, Carsten

*) Decimal number representation code is hard.  (I'm too lazy to look up
the CVEs to provde this.)  Even sorting text is not exactly easy.