Re: [Json] Consensus on JSON-text (WAS: JSON: remove gap between Ecma-404 and IETF draft)

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:24 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Nico Williams scripsit:
>
>> "datetime" and such are interpretations of more basic datatypes,
>
> An interval of time is not a string, any more than a number is a string.
> They are both *representable* by strings, but everything is: you can
> represent a human being or the planet Saturn by a string.

Interval definitely sounds like a tuple, but, sure, JSON texts can
represent arrays as text...

>> they belong in pre-agreed/documented schema rather than on the wire.
>
> The decision to do so is arbitrary.

Of course it is.  How much to describe on the wire vs. schema is... a
continuum.  Given the JSON we have though... it's best to deal with
datetime via schema.

My point was and still is that the one thing that's sorely missing is
an indefinite-length unescaped binary data encoding, and which is not
nearly as complex, notionally, IMO, as other types.

Nico
--

Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 02:23:38 UTC