Re: [Json] Regarding JSON text sequence ambiguities (Re: serializing sequences of JSON values)

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Tue, 11 March 2014 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 429C31A074F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 eKFku7iv7I54 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22a.google.com (mail-lb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C36AD1A0756 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id s7so5956799lbd.29 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5rWQ+rqwfTHetizI8I62R+/WS5lQ4JO7oQRmRHZtqaE=; b=BxULV9m1Es/kDRPXetDVY8j9j5du1IFjnWJwH7QCGS0wY2HjjEQvKszm4/v2L7B3b3 K4LcmmiGQUi+5M0W7mLP46P2ZLmuE+IbVrhfA26DnWQOPAgXwzhWwl2SyWQFNbXwUJXB 7bI9B6mKr8GUIOulGxc2u5ft+XWW4jIWtOIlghxN0QJ44PXikDhtfHeL4pRhMhcuTUCl Mo8v0iF0uc4+uQpjL+maGyMFBvzlcjqSJiX3la1dbVz37C7hNmhMVWg40g6IBR05X2ux tBkiDI7hpngkO2JkvCnPb/dABmkK3riXvmvQXIVG5o7mwcFKbHRzJx9sKmIf8tbjjQ4b W2vQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.151.146 with SMTP id uq18mr6281381lbb.38.1394557754371; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.37.168 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6iuRyRd95Wa_omGS1_T52t+s0AKjWPUW21EAh2ySHuFp=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK3OfOj_XQJq-JKAjNdH-GuH0_UwZfeWntgyyizMpTLmSaWQoA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOio58+1yuxQOcvWep1CADMfE1PVC48XDid0dWvd8=SVjA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOXDeqoYb=NXz4ikMxAg3EHFA+903bFgdpR_BL-K18U2oYriXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOiPDfWpOZgExTmwwq6WFcuVbyi_z3C0=M9RhQveBhV_+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iuRyRd95Wa_omGS1_T52t+s0AKjWPUW21EAh2ySHuFp=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 13:09:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjRA8x0=zXGRVDy0BqYvyOcEp7=gnUiG4vYOb1RScoyrA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7beb97d891734604f457c7d9
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/QPfUHfzB59QhuV1Yt0oDZ8zAcyE
Cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, Matthew Morley <matt@mpcm.com>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Regarding JSON text sequence ambiguities (Re: serializing sequences of JSON values)
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: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:09:24 -0000

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> Heh, I wonder if there'd be any chance of getting consensus.  I can't
> imagine ever using anything but Object Object Object with optional
> whitespace separator; unless we all agree on that going in I'd pessimistic
> about anyone convincing anyone else...
>

But JSON has comma separators, so {..}, {..}, {..} makes far more sense.

The array production in the grammar already specifies this syntax so JSON
parsers already recognize it. Your proposal is something new.



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/