[Json] Mapping scheme? Was: I-JSON

On 2016-11-14 05:03, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> It seems like I-JSON is the answer to many of the issues that have cropped up with JSON.
>
> However, as a protocol designer, it's not terribly useful to specify I-JSON, because it's very likely that people will just use their existing JSON tools.
>
> A simple answer might be to define a new media type that has a header that's guaranteed to break a JSON parser prepended, but I-JSON as the body.
>
> It might be that people just strip the header and continue to process as JSON, but they have to actively do that, which may be enough of a bar to discourage it (and encourage I-JSON tools to bloom).
>
> Of course, we could define a syntax that's more deeply incompatible with JSON. Not sure if that's necessary, though.
>
> Thoughts?

Hi Mark,

As I wrote in the reply to your message I consider ES6 to be a (de-facto) successor to I-JSON.

What's maybe missing is a standardized mapping scheme since lots of people need to emulate additional data types on top of a JSON "string".

The scientific people want 80-bits IEEE
The Java/Python/C# folks want true 64-bit integers
The crypto geeks want really big integers
The financial guys want big decimals

The only change that is needed on the JSON level is making comments a standard so that JSON becomes a logical choice for "config" files as well.
It appears to be close to a de-facto standard already.

Anders

>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>