Re: [Json] On flat vs nested JSON encoding style

Anders Rundgren <> Fri, 05 February 2016 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31F901A910E for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 01:06:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SXrxq1xbnGk4 for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 01:06:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AB3E1A90EE for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 01:06:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p63so17017929wmp.1 for <>; Fri, 05 Feb 2016 01:06:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HNeRb3mp5ELHQ0DjUTHuXJCJ3EOeRHwb8jD4ZljAXcM=; b=urwBRpp5JoWxrwSt0VLqakip5DLmgMVmSKCciHh7jKJFXm/Nyt8Kf5nVPwETRxiApd Zuc4/R/S8BnF+CYwd/bwr+NjOt6gnFg4aUQrnTZ2LRfrILaweQG1+h2bDAozhvd+LctW qSXRWle7thHFjBrA58WuZd2mcjtBhhb9BkMhS5LBgGtjkZ7sV2EG1NYiuC+ATys4SXo9 CMy668+64RJJ7vIrt7V4IY74bR9gjLRfU/nWRl/24XFjdq845WVbNuro/ZWKkklk4VBO p9SKmh2cDrJ1b0SaTxnDq5QQocTi91IHkYKT9aST3phdx2U74k0S3cv3a3Q3EE5fv/wb tIug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HNeRb3mp5ELHQ0DjUTHuXJCJ3EOeRHwb8jD4ZljAXcM=; b=DpDbeTfC1sR6OJ1qENGCAJJLj9OquOH6DoLyfU+sllfefpiqpQ+Nlu+5Ln62r2MaNy onbWGtEwnLpfrQUAAumjE/dwfH18TVr2/htpXq+m20zUblXEzWMlZc7DApyz/z3wL+JG mqbhCtozil94Za7n+MWS7hCIKcQM1idXOTVWvQkubYL2RucjotqQ+UMKLG/W4OU+2k5p E5QP7ro648DvwCxrO8T6ir7A3RQqpMQpwfqMRXQ6Lp4Oqc1chFSJehK0S6XU8jF66klG IVeA4TxT5YjLEZOooDGjcniyI9nSr2//xyNotr6GujXJu+dXLCrrq4tiSepA9mW2EKJY 39/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOS2Nx6U06Lfl4fdcsh9WmQ8szNVzB6nvuwwiMVR91Rc/PLtUARczIkGRjCQ5frBNQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id gg6mr12001307wjb.84.1454663191981; Fri, 05 Feb 2016 01:06:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id kb5sm14995376wjc.22.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 05 Feb 2016 01:06:31 -0800 (PST)
To: Carsten Bormann <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Anders Rundgren <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 10:06:10 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: JSON WG <>
Subject: Re: [Json] On flat vs nested JSON encoding style
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 09:06:35 -0000

On 2016-02-05 08:41, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Anders Rundgren wrote:
>> 18 months
> JSON has been around for more than a decade.  It would take another
> decade for a change that goes so deep into the fundamentals to become
> widespread (and sufficiently debugged* on enough platforms to become
> reliable).

I have successfully tested Chrome, Firefox, Safari, My Java library, and a Python
patch against a file with 100M of random and selected IEEE 64-bit values.

> Wake me up when, say, ArduinoJson supports your form of canonicalization.

There are different markets with different needs and traditions.  Must they
all use the same standard(s)?

An  acquaintance of mine working for a major IoT vendor (who is very active
in the IETF/JSON space), claims that the IoT market rather will go for CBOR.

FWIW, I'm claiming that the Payment industry won't buy into JOSE, they will
probably build something of their own and ES6/V8 serialization makes that a
viable option.

PHB also seems to be experimenting with ways to get around the Base64URL dogma:

Standards are fun...the more the merrier! :-)


> Grüße, Carsten
> *) Decimal number representation code is hard.  (I'm too lazy to look up
> the CVEs to provde this.)  Even sorting text is not exactly easy.