IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] JSON and int64s - any change in current best practice since I-JSON

Joe Hildebrand <hildjj@cursive.net> Wed, 17 January 2024 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <hildjj@cursive.net>
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 82AD7C151536 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 08:51:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cursive.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oEDi1vqOWYYk for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 08:51:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf36.google.com (mail-qv1-xf36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f36]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB472C14F5E2 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 08:51:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf36.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6815165b28eso26233316d6.1 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 08:51:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cursive.net; s=google; t=1705510268; x=1706115068; darn=ietf.org; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=mrNMmxVcw0Khg/w8HnKWI6orB2xZ4Fm3TZl98gMGLpQ=; b=o1xvLH46MbrrMp2bbgqbcrNBeqHou7BNT7WgSzcuvwGEjfU7GoSsCQw5DDJkIGHatl weMZ5IQN5xtKSK0+AVQ++UMbSSyYgFKfZ0KSK1FpAQdYv01EVOcxDfZ1rpGs313VLliS 3rf/tcXslR7o+bvJD9iJf/EExMspg7SHvpVJw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1705510268; x=1706115068; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mrNMmxVcw0Khg/w8HnKWI6orB2xZ4Fm3TZl98gMGLpQ=; b=IINi+aXtyBkR0tteUTkA02ftWatpnR8EWX53UjkbNR9JOSyRKCzrpPWVgAOjBhwWod SjnYpyCF9Nw0YdnKS/ShZfL98Yf22vngvdSAGcZtPWDOdJqgDm0dR+JgzPDuzmxiAlX2 YnFKBewnnA4ViwmXsi93eGCVq8wzytWgYK+0Zat4Pc4Qv71VfLMdYgX4RCQY09M2Px4c 67PbADplaLkgj1Bzmy8CE12v3GGxd2TlLf4Kt2FqxQrUFbN7l4WbRRIwpSzhcawqyeuB rSk4boLsf5AwIKnkDueBr5UOTDYoafwD3SwFSSYjDbtNiMGW6RhfkJTUUBEj27OE2et/ wPTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywam5/zoUrg2aaSCVH6Q5mmjPC1/GYCnRpu00uIgZblNYBLkET/ XOJsAHnlWpZM7cOZMBWOKC4LlO1SDhF9VvX75MtnSji+kQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF3XIRM4jEHpgcR4SM2Y+XVcs5Z1xe4O5HHWZWYGcfuJbtjA60Lf4Sf2gV4pUxJgpBIOQiAyQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:528f:b0:681:7341:1d5c with SMTP id kj15-20020a056214528f00b0068173411d5cmr2565808qvb.64.1705510268599; Wed, 17 Jan 2024 08:51:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (pool-71-163-33-223.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.163.33.223]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v20-20020ad448d4000000b006817069492bsm1449152qvx.70.2024.01.17.08.51.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Jan 2024 08:51:08 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.300.61.1.2\))
From: Joe Hildebrand <hildjj@cursive.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6ivWPoJ5jUgvnXG=Ei+kh6yYXsBykKGs8cneSN0w9PCTyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:50:57 -0500
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>, Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AD053EDD-D221-4433-9DD9-E5F090BA72C4@cursive.net>
References: <87527a42-aaac-4f39-b320-05f18a2808c1@codalogic.com> <C31BF4C8-9E6C-48F8-BF7B-D2C379273B3F@tzi.org> <CAHBU6it4SaLawSiBgK9ySkbxjtHE6CX-P3r=hzcVy4ksoQo-Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SxHfLW-A1asAndKJz-AiyJv5QP18bi=_bNdKXw7zYHThw@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SweYdCWxSABZ7g20Zd-xBFzcK0Ritq53S7WtjSwc-vLmw@mail.gmail.com> <E5A68370-CC2F-4618-AB39-39A382656616@cursive.net> <807fea1b-a22b-4d6b-aa5d-720c9b12023c@codalogic.com> <09233A73-3A6B-4E6F-AEB8-596AC6442E24@cursive.net> <CAHBU6ivWPoJ5jUgvnXG=Ei+kh6yYXsBykKGs8cneSN0w9PCTyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.300.61.1.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/r9nYEXrguOe2CJeFWO9QX96gXyk>
Subject: Re: [Json] JSON and int64s - any change in current best practice since I-JSON
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:51:13 -0000

> On Jan 17, 2024, at 11:44 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> 
> I think prefix not suffix? A nice thing about parson JSON is that you can tell what kind of thing a value is by looking at its first character.

You'd collide with "null" if you used "n", but there are lots of other prefixes available.  I don't mind a prefix.

>> If we were to add Date (which is absolutely the most important after bigint), I might want the other JS built-in types as well.  I wonder if we could reuse the CBOR tag registry, and make Date stringify to:
>> 
>> 0('2024-01-17T16:26:23Z') 
>> or 
>> dt('2024-01-17T16:26:23Z')
> 
> I’d do @2024-01-17T16:26:23Z

You're also arguing that you don't want any other type extensibility, right?  That's a valid approach, it should just be an explicit decision. 

— 
Joe Hildebrand

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email