Re: #225: JFV Revisited

On 12/08/2016 6:42 p.m., Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 11 August 2016 at 14:52, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> Thoughts (here or there)?
> 
> I thought that the direction of the discussion was promising.  A
> bespoke format, though more work, is entirely justified in this case.

Ditto. I was okay with JSON only for the short period where the Draft
was speaking of it as the format for use in RFCs (as replacement for
ABNF) not on-wire format for delivery.

What will be will be, but I wont pretend to like it (JSON). Even YAML
would be better than JSON, but that would require use of obs-fold.

Amos

Received on Friday, 12 August 2016 07:04:00 UTC