Re: If not JSON, what then ?

--------
In message <48B021E6-5AA2-4075-9E16-A9F837CA512F@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
tes:

>>> 5) I like the idea of 'implicit angle brackets' to retrofit some 
>>> existing headers. Depending on the parse algorithm we define, we could 
>>> potentially fit a fair number of existing headers into this, although 
>>> deriving the specific data types of things like parameter arguments is 
>>> going to be difficult (or maybe impossible). Needs some investigation 
>>> before we know whether this would be viable.
>> 
>> Schemas!  Have I mentioned already how smart I think schemas usable
>> to build code with would be ?  :-)
>
>So it's really "implicit angle brackets plus a reference to a 
>retrofitted schema". OK. 

yes.

>Get on another train and start working on that schema language. :)

I should have seen that one coming :-)

>> PS: I had expected you to ask if was trying to sabotage your Key 
>header :-)
>
>That's one of the reasons I complained about arbitrary recursion.
>
>However, whatever happens here, I think we have to accept that Key will 
>not be able to address all header fields; it's always going to be a 
>subset. If a particular header field wants to leverage Key, it'll need 
>to be specified within its capabilities (provided it gets traction, of 
>course).

The interesting angle is that if we have such a common structure, the
Key header could use it to describe exactly what you want to pull out
of a header, not as a substring, but as correctly parsed data elements.


-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2016 13:11:06 UTC