IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Counterproposal #2 on work items

Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com> Wed, 20 February 2013 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <fgaliegue@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A51821F88CC for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:19:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y5GOHgCzjwQz for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:19:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ee0-f51.google.com (mail-ee0-f51.google.com [74.125.83.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8085321F889C for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:19:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ee0-f51.google.com with SMTP id d17so4126905eek.24 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:19:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uIzDk48/7PqGF8yJ16h1uLxCFYZ68q5130jsvwBIaDA=; b=pGuEW52IvQDuXGjGVD/J3WPNH1JkFWFSUkMxftNaC0a2MDTqzz9cBT0o/be5yNC2vL KaNffdvMncWZw8d6tJPrIU3jnIIZfvEVqjJqheNyaHOqYQCvgMVWkrV2lHabMmjbnECA JrShmSgvNRtmJ11uR+ViZifSdCb6y5Kol7yOJnGsLTfZXyIBbbxQ69Pvqz/JpXJusq3X ZoxTblEwPSVvF3cVMHGbXxtDy8p+/uL/pXRFhiVDUmgGuydJHE9R9fmMN3C50FkN+Hcn WZgGLNiS/LldjOtpx5Wbsix3mNpxCUEgRZKXuBVzJT3aTtoBKqq+V6TFX9SKkvWZiw9B xp9g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.14.175.129 with SMTP id z1mr73092474eel.7.1361391542616; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:19:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.14.1.7 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:19:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6isQRpaU2R2bBLjLhHs0Br_zE0XjvRpdNEC9nPGU7yKW0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHBU6isrzwVwYcvucFrQjO=wSbp3S9f=CLXyU_8BznTpGZGSTQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALcybBCCtzxzZ2KLN83JnhJBkWe_WTMmKpo6ZcudcEgmL7XHdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6isQRpaU2R2bBLjLhHs0Br_zE0XjvRpdNEC9nPGU7yKW0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:19:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CALcybBC87P7FT7n5d8xmXMxSFU1LBS9eJUsRX4hfYP5CUJr3QA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Counterproposal #2 on work items
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion related to JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\)." <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:19:06 -0000

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> I’m actually pretty sure about that one, for use in protocols.  If in some
> protocol I'm going to send you 3 data items called “size”, “date”, and
> “uid”, if I put them in a hash, then when for a later version we need to add
> “ttl”, assuming a MUST-IGNORE policy, you can just do it.  If you’ve put
> them in a tuple or some such, you have much less flexibility.  -T
>

And what about JSON-RPC which uses an _array_ of requests/responses
for batch requests?

While an object may be suitable for 95+% of protocols, this is not a
reason for outlawing protocols which _do not_ use objects. And it
costs nothing to enlarge what is possible.

-- 
Francis Galiegue, fgaliegue@gmail.com
Try out your JSON Schemas: http://json-schema-validator.herokuapp.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email