IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 17 January 2024 19:13 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 42CE5C14F71D for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:13:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 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] 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 AR7PkQefACKp for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:13:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::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 41E10C14F60A for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:13:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (eduroam-pool10-322.wlan.uni-bremen.de [134.102.91.65]) (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 4TFbBR5Yr8zDCcp; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 20:13:19 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.300.61.1.2\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <E798F54D-B727-42E5-8229-DB1F75C9378F@cursive.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 20:13:09 +0100
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D53A554D-EF4E-464D-8D35-411339B10987@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> <CAHBU6isiUhvhk5VPpQ1A_kGDJZhsGLc1xkyu6pNeLUBHw2_dzg@mail.gmail.com> <0D9273E3-A07F-4303-9AF7-89375FDC2496@tzi.org> <CAChr6Sw=em9poOXTEsYzxbFHSRsrWzFyZof50X4Tca0E2Fecuw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6it4rvnYQGnrwrigAtL05O7SH2coRrq91Si1xr3u7oC47w@mail.gmail.com> <E798F54D-B727-42E5-8229-DB1F75C9378F@cursive.net>
To: Joe Hildebrand <hildjj@cursive.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.300.61.1.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/LcLGTCPiUekaLWu8zHsnPPWS2ds>
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: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 19:13:26 -0000

> If we're not careful, we will just be recreating YAML -- that's another approach we could take, I suppose, but YAML has enough flexibility in its format that I sometimes have a hard time reading it.

There is no need to recreate YAML — it already exists.
YAML is what people should use who need a more human-friendly version of JSON.

> All new things have to start somewhere.  Worst case, nobody uses it -- I doubt it will hurt the Internet.

It will waste time though — like all the other hundreds of JSON forks that in the end couldn’t compete with YAML.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email