Re: [Json] I-JSON

> On 14 Nov 2016, at 13:03, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> 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.

My understanding of I-JSON is that it specifically allows people to use their existing JSON tools. In RFC 7951 we use I-JSON and, for example, encode 64-bit integers as strings even though it is awkward and adds extra processing steps in most tools.

Lada

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

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C