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

Matthew Morley <matt@mpcm.com> Mon, 28 April 2014 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mmorley@mpcm.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 9B8E51A6F03 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 TxcDmbzZ5OAa for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com (mail-la0-f51.google.com [209.85.215.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E5801A07A2 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id gl10so1879420lab.24 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=iUnQQ894cSR2saVo+eWtigeuyBM8622DnJuUPLYZRfw=; b=hyAEzq38Bja29XpfA/PMEVKPNF1DRZ24voECD2MKFDje/uA/qAX/g6RJKlEPXkg83y yckwAXL2TlqzX2tcJNH2mOZvPnP8zEJXZFkTCajL9UzHZ4mHnxHbGWVHHnI1phTG6u79 3E0n4AhPwa1ZpsKIQtFHta9oYP780CHbewXGVD4dKGQfh+UOyabXC4AQP0HzvjKu+PXa IUprm+olNWbewGyfUo0T2ryZRrpcuBcx538vXH//1FbPyDK9j+a/6ZybFhdD6T3P9aHB JxUAgN4bLnKYlqYf+h7lkyF+F7c1Pboh6zum99I3AjvlTcMX7Op0BpUVogOwSucOjlHW GL/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnzIQ1ZNVS45HtvuGzEiauDHlUZlF/WbH9khbk8PhT3eED8fsmdFLKWEBWqBfi1bgNQZjQJ
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.153.7.69 with SMTP id da5mr3206983lad.38.1398720509434; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mmorley@mpcm.com
Received: by 10.114.0.172 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <535EB119.4000908@cisco.com>
References: <535EB119.4000908@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:28:29 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: MsniB8gJRRGbvvMQAPtZbrNjEcg
Message-ID: <CAOXDeqrovjiiA6USnvB-gBjJwqpyGNSZbPym-AzNSLQufwn5cA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Morley <matt@mpcm.com>
To: Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113456301af19104f820ffd5
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/ORbXpmIs0ekIreaaAAOKPkdK6wE
Cc: IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
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 21:28:33 -0000

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> "draft-i-json-01 says the top level is an object (but doesn’t say
> MUST, eek).  I have heard arguments for allowing arrays too."
>
> If you are in favor -- or not -- of restricting the top-level I-JSON
> text to only be object (or array / object), please respond to this
> thread with your reasoning.
>

I am not in favor of restricting the top-level I-JSON text only to be an
object. This would make it stricter than RFC4627/ecma-262 and then stand to
muddy the waters of what the application/json media type currently states.
I don't believe it is a good idea to make this stricter, without a matching
media type, which I think makes this also a non-starter.

I am content to see it as array or object at the top level. Since this
seems to be the current level of accepted use by most people within the
JSON community due to RFC4627.

But, I would greatly prefer that any JSON value be allowed as the top level
item. The requirement that any JSON value be represented within a structure
creates an amount of unneeded indirection and overhead.

If my program intends to set a local value to be the response from another
source. It should not have to know that it must descend into the actual
result to obtain the sources intended value. If both sides agree to send
array/object structures, akin to golang's multiple return values, I
consider this a better practice. But it should not be a requirement, or an
imposed overhead.

Add to this, http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-15.12.1.2seems
to define JSON text as any JSON value in contrast with RFC4627. My
reading/understanding of RFC4267/ecma-262 may be incorrect, but my feeling
that restrictions on the top level value should be lifted, not tightened.



>
>
> - --
> - - m&m
>
> Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com >
> Cisco Systems, Inc.
>
> * "How to Argue about I-JSON" <
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg02775.html >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTXrEZAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1bjAH/RxLeWEABXMoJEJrw92lYfkP
> bLgoS7TRoSxVdUY9K8SVMEJKHMrY2QrK/aNqhwlpWvIirM70xFUT7Sb40M+Msmm/
> qFZTFfVRdRsnqsd21dciZ6hA4eSDfkP81cIoMn4MiCx8EExZCj7yroWaTor8jNct
> 7BgVCWkom2ENVNOb6JEPFa7LD6hpm/9vx1FHctbDgreJuhsYxY9Uy17h/BjxxwPc
> NkNFbo+OX4Zw6f053cKWbITps/R+IAM57atzJ9PgGpMpN+POQJF/BihnB1qRdUsv
> y8QqQ1s8r47DauWQ0eX4BxgPXeGV+jBqXrtVAzyNq2B7KFkDukf9UVahUaJjwJU=
> =nAfX
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>



-- 
Matthew P. C. Morley