Re: [Json] Call for WG Consensus to Adopt I-JSON as a WG Item in the Charter

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Nico Williams <[e-mail]>wrote:

> My main complaint is with the recommendation/requirement that JSON
> texts be objects at the top-level.
>
> Instead I would say that if there's reason to need to signal "schema"
> metadata in-band then a) application should specify how they do that,
> b) here's a few ways in which they might, and all their pros and cons.
>
> Note too that there are many apps where there's no need to signal
> schema metadata in-band because they always have some way to
> communicate relevant metadata out of band.
>
> Nico
> --


I have no problem with this as a convention in a protocol. But I don't see
the need for that restriction in I-JSON.

In a protocol design the spec is going to say something like 'the encoding
is in the I-JSON subset of JSON'. Then its going to describe the format of
the data which for a protocol is almost always gonna be an object per
message at the top level. Though it could be an array of objects if
multiple requests per message are supported.



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