Re: #225: JFV Revisited

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> C) Specify conventions for people to use when defining headers, to avoid
> the most common footguns involved in that process (as well as generation,
> parsing, etc.).... I think people saw JSON as a (... snip ... practical)
> means to an end.
>

^ yes, that.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
 wrote:

> But I dont want to waste my time, if there is a "sub rosae" requirement
> for the result to be JSON?
>

No, there isn't. But JSON, despite the downsides that have been brought up
here, *is* very appealing on a practical level.

I'd be more than happy to see viable alternative proposals that address all
of the above points.

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:

> On 13/08/2016 3:08 a.m., Julian Reschke wrote:
> > On 2016-08-12 09:03, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> >> On 12/08/2016 6:42 p.m., Martin Thomson wrote:
> >>> On 11 August 2016 at 14:52, Mark Nottingham 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.
> >
> > It never did that.
> >
>
> Well the text in the pre- ietf'96 Draft certainly fooled me.
>
> Amos
>
>
>