W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2011

Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON?

From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:28:56 -0400
Message-ID: <20110324.162856.1124801659068749644.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Subject: Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON?
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:54:18 -0500

> On 24 Mar 2011, at 19:32, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> I'm not complaining that JSON is too complicated (and I am
>> hoping that JSON does indeed turn out to be relatively simple).  I am
>> complaining that requiring the understanding of essentially the entire
>> definition of a complex programming language to understand JSON is not
>> effective.
> Effective for whom? Effective in achieving what outcome?
> Richard

Well, for starters, effective for me.  Am I supposed to understand all
of JavaScript, including the intricacies of object creation, prototypes,
etc.?  I don't do any significant programming in JavaScript, after all,
and I have lots of other things that I could be doing (even, maybe, if
the WG is (un?)lucky, working on named graphs).

And then, of course, effective for the WG.  If I don't end up
understanding JSON I'm likely to not vote for the JSON work in the WG,
or maybe even vote against it, just maybe causing all the efforts of the
WG to fail.  So, then, of course, effective for people who want to use
the JSON efforts of the WG.

I don't think that I am unique in this position.

Received on Thursday, 24 March 2011 20:29:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:04 UTC