Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format?

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 14 June 2013 02:20 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
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 E800621F99A7 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:20:07 -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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KO2keWUFfPHO for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a66.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcahe.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC5A21F8AF4 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a66.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a66.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9B9350072 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=Eadr7nWTwacDBAGzdO3d oqF2B+Q=; b=XSaTkeI8WVLCR8g2/WjaSURx0ez3IsThDj8aG0fWQkdZQnTZ1b7G 75kBFeI+3zq7Vzo1L4d3JL+rTmhWPXTf1p667o/+wEDoZcaY/2v0Q9ajY9qE/D7J M/8sRiZkZrlKFcgTo2jOtaokUK2LnBmVSmFRsNIdIfoklv1UEXmMvoA=
Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com (mail-ie0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a66.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED727350057 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u16so187930iet.9 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=s+zPsB/ORbPr07zXnqxaCd9pmv3BTgyUQIEE4LAV/2k=; b=JvEIVABijLzeijikdjBn/1IugT8G9eR6KOA2gDuAZ/ylhql2ntnRw2mh9KsUxLX4xE ZRH1ZeQVB1WHKJKFyyGHxMUZd9YBtnKVccJBWUkXzQLviykwugPyrz5Z/xfU8m6kFEXF EuWQf45aOPwe8hEklSEOrG2ckZ+Xa1W5tw86R0waMz6GCGimdDo91on3VpnUCiAmo+Me QwdBOyRBBCGF04PpMbE3Y0RmN7IHhql3jTFBNZnstOWohZHA8Kl6DJyrrq7J+Pfu8ZBu udXj6LX3Q+KxB/fSe5u5wokBHn4oKgtPfwSvwBDe+/mKiCMwI8QgjsmVE1NE88M0UoGF vlMw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.127.211 with SMTP id ni19mr73460igb.93.1371176401280; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.106.232 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6FC6B441-B74D-4B9F-B883-065C05890880@lindenbergsoftware.com>
References: <6FC6B441-B74D-4B9F-B883-065C05890880@lindenbergsoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:20:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOiOW_X=G5sjZc1+f135E4McfyP5Vb_Z_NsV+E=0ph-6bA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Norbert Lindenberg <ietf@lindenbergsoftware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Scope: Wire format or runtime format?
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 02:20:08 -0000

Well, JavaScript itself carries data and programs (but I repeat
myself) and gets carried around in network protocols all the time.  A
stretch, maybe, but to say that JavaScript is the language of the web
is not all that hyperbolic.

We might well end up with *two* JSONs.  I'd rather as much as possible
end up with just one.  The spec + best practices concept works for me
so far.

I don't really mind the compromises that actual deployments have
forced on JSON, be it re: duplicate names in objects or non-Unicode
content in what look like Unicode strings.  I was as shocked as others
for a bit, but it's passed :)

Nico
--