RE: json-string for HTTP header field parameter values

On 2011-10-31 at 15:33:35, David Morris wrote:
> Using the JSON string syntax w/o designing in support for JSON objects 
> doesn't make sense to me. I suspect it would be quite confusing and 
> many would assume that JSON objects were supported.

I wouldn't have made that conclusion.  You wouldn't even have to mention JSON in any specification, just to add the syntactical constructs so that the string syntax becomes identical.

But Mark said it best.  The encoding in 5987 is sufficient.  I tend to think that it loses a lot in the human-readable area, which is still important to me, but it is hard to justify adding another mechanism where an adequate one already exists.

Sadly, the aesthetic concern only has any sway once all the other concerns are addressed.


Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 05:56:19 UTC