Re: [Json] I-JSON

On 2016-11-14 05:03, Mark Nottingham 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.
>
> 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?

The differences between I-JSON and a "sensibly use" of traditional JSON appears to minimal.

If people really want to go further, TJSON is yet another alternative in the workings:
https://www.tjson.org/

Personally I stick to the ES6 definition which is supported by Node.js, Browsers, Java and then some.

That ES6 (in contrast to the other variants) also defines property serialization order makes it highly adapted for cryptographic operations like hashing without any "extras."  A plain JSON.stringify() suffice.

Anders

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