Re: [Json] I-JSON Tpic #2: Top-Level

Yes, please. In OData we investigate suggesting adhering to such a 
constrained JSON (OData JSON Texts are in format JSON always wrapped as 
values of a {"d": VALUE} element. It is nice to be able, to just 
reference I-JSON draft. If we remove that essential constraint, to me it 
would look quite useless or should I say nostalgic :-?

"Stefan"
Am 30.04.14 05:40, schrieb Tim Bray:
> I’m sorry, but the central idea of I-JSON is to explicitly rule out all
> the interoperability problems identified in RFC7159: How to produce
> maximally-interoperable JSON.  7159 specifically says that for
> interoperability a JSON Text should be an object or array, and the idea
> of making I-JSON less constraining totally defeats its purpose.  This is
> just not a reasonable direction to be going.
>
> Yes, it’s perfectly clear to any language lawyer that in ECMAScript, 42
> is a first-class JSON text, nobody is disputing this.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Manger, James
> <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com
> <mailto:James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>> wrote:
>
>      > Protocols with messages which are objects are better than other
>     protocols, because they are architecturally friendly to MustIgnore
>     policies.
>
>     Perhaps we should say a MustIgnore policy applies to all objects in
>     I-JSON; instead of merely making a MustIgnore policy possible via a
>     somewhat tangential rule that the top-level must be an object.
>
>     --
>     James Manger
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>