Re: [Json] I-JSON Tpic #2: Top-Level

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Mon, 28 April 2014 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
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 D89A31A6FB7 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] autolearn=no
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 zOf43eGcv49o for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 185A01A064C for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3346227BC069 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=G9DdcCIm3mBuOuqfB1PP6DuXYjU=; b=K12yXf5q2+L PXRw8UweSI/pGDjjEU/f5I1GDeP1lOFa9TtoL2dDen8X0SGMRcWIl9vMQi1RqLCQ 6hXnry1RA3A0gx2n3ny2mSpBRRtXjlsrWJ1w3ajg6EkBwbyOMMl/ZFiTYEFt/YLJ RwGw4fxITY1A67DyqoeMSRquDqVGfkjU=
Received: from mail-we0-f176.google.com (mail-we0-f176.google.com [74.125.82.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a67.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D98E127BC061 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id x48so6751073wes.7 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.211.116 with SMTP id nb20mr17043797wic.5.1398717386766; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.29.200 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6itycQmqzAuxWyrFZ_v=fHdenm2csyAqtUGGu+vteh6=yQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <535EB119.4000908@cisco.com> <CAHBU6itycQmqzAuxWyrFZ_v=fHdenm2csyAqtUGGu+vteh6=yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:36:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOjeaMLKMgNgJE7Cbr-LW1R5HMWBp3MFZREsZUbeMwwHNA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/9dY1J0mCd54_53cYXkjrw6wABVE
Cc: IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] I-JSON Tpic #2: Top-Level
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: <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: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 20:36:30 -0000

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> Protocols with messages which are objects are better than other protocols,
> because they are architecturally friendly to MustIgnore policies.
>
> Allowing top-level JSON to be a primitive - true, null, 42 - is batshit
> crazy for anything the IETF might contemplate, and one of I-JSON’s main
> virtues is ruling that out.

What if the service outputs JSON texts output by a jq program supplied
by the client and applied to server-side data?

> I don’t think top-level arrays are actively harmful at the same level, but
> the MustIgnore is a pretty big value-add, forcing people to sort-of
> future-proof themselves even when they haven’t realized why that’s a good
> idea.

Why can't schema changes be communicated out-of-band?  Apps request
JSON in a particular schema; servers report the schema when the schema
was not requested...

I can see the value in recommending the use of top-level objects in
general, just not in requiring it.

Still, I think if you want to say "so don't use I-JSON", I think
that's mostly fine.  The only problem that comes up is the possibility
that I-JSON would crowd out JSON to the point where non-I-JSON might
not be usable.  I think what I'd want to see there is that JSON
parsers should really just have an option as to this, rather than have
I-JSON parsers that are not also JSON parsers.

Nico
--