IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] On flat vs nested JSON encoding style

John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> Fri, 05 February 2016 00:17 UTC

Return-Path: <cowan@ccil.org>
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 381E71ACDD0 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 16:17:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 7oNKYmew6z6X for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 16:17:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 134791ACDCC for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 16:17:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <cowan@ccil.org>) id 1aRU5N-0003vN-TN; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 19:17:18 -0500
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 19:17:17 -0500
From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160205001717.GC2997@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <CAMm+LwirhVcmUkdfyA3WKe_W747JTWNF1Ht2Nr8NJdDxOFCJOw@mail.gmail.com> <56B36D15.1030306@gmail.com> <56B370A1.1050508@tzi.org> <56B373B8.7040305@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56B373B8.7040305@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/dJvH6LcOH_s4yHUWzW67GUx6KW8>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] On flat vs nested JSON encoding style
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: <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: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 00:17:26 -0000

Anders Rundgren scripsit:

> This ecosystem is rapidly diminishing since ECMAScript nowadays mandates
> strict insertion/declaration order for serialization.

That affects only ECMAscript implementations, though, so there are no such
guarantees on the server side, or server-to-server, unless Node.js or
something similar is being used.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org
If you have ever wondered if you are in hell, it has been said, then
you are on a well-traveled road of spiritual inquiry.  If you are
absolutely sure you are in hell, however, then you must be on the Cross
Bronx Expressway.  --Alan Feuer, New York Times, 2002-09-20

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email