IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 18 January 2024 11:47 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 4C3C7C2FEE0F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 03:47:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QFP9WBwiqZOR for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 03:47:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56EFDC2FEE05 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 03:47:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eduroam-0298.wlan.uni-bremen.de (eduroam-0298.wlan.uni-bremen.de [134.102.17.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4TG1Fm04NszDCcn; Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:47:39 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <0BB09B30-B606-44CC-85DC-95A47E485316@cursive.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 12:47:36 +0100
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 727271256.384104-9e619ab2afa22dcfe5c33ab3ff4da074
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B22EDB2D-0AD1-4582-9191-EFB40E163F19@tzi.org>
References: <87527a42-aaac-4f39-b320-05f18a2808c1@codalogic.com> <C31BF4C8-9E6C-48F8-BF7B-D2C379273B3F@tzi.org> <CAHBU6it4SaLawSiBgK9ySkbxjtHE6CX-P3r=hzcVy4ksoQo-Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SxHfLW-A1asAndKJz-AiyJv5QP18bi=_bNdKXw7zYHThw@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SweYdCWxSABZ7g20Zd-xBFzcK0Ritq53S7WtjSwc-vLmw@mail.gmail.com> <E5A68370-CC2F-4618-AB39-39A382656616@cursive.net> <807fea1b-a22b-4d6b-aa5d-720c9b12023c@codalogic.com> <09233A73-3A6B-4E6F-AEB8-596AC6442E24@cursive.net> <869950DC-647B-4481-AEF8-9E092384E99F@tzi.org> <CBD32B58-8328-4602-89C6-BC2A7A875A0D@cursive.net> <994E2C0A-4AE0-4720-8C67-913BBF033E11@tzi.org> <0BB09B30-B606-44CC-85DC-95A47E485316@cursive.net>
To: Joe Hildebrand <hildjj@cursive.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/JYeDJNqxJWmvw2qdYzbdR2CDtXY>
Subject: Re: [Json] JSON and int64s - any change in current best practice since I-JSON
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 11:47:48 -0000

On 2024-01-17, at 18:00, Joe Hildebrand <hildjj@cursive.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Jan 17, 2024, at 11:54 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Understand now.
>> I’m wondering why CBOR EDN couldn’t fit the bill...
> 
> Perhaps.  I'm still not a fan of parsing CBOR diagnostic notation,

[1] has an ABNF grammar, so this should be much easier now.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-07.html#name-abnf-definitions

I’m sure we handle commas right here...

> and EDN has features around encoding size that would be actively harmful a text-based interchange format, IMO.

You wouldn’t use encoding indicators in the JSON subset.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email