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

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

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:25:44 +0000
Cc: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B634F37B-4CA1-4AD8-8C83-3A315AD80DDE@cyganiak.de>
To: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
On 24 Mar 2011, at 20:28, 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?
> 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,

“Javascript for Dummies” might be a better place to start than ECMA-262 then ;-)

(Sorry, could not resist ...)

Silly jokes aside, I 100% agree with Ivan's comment regarding community expectations, and with Nathan's comment regarding what we actually need to deliver.

This WG has a broad membership, including several with plenty of experience in the JSON space, so I think that base is well-covered.


> 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.
> peter
Received on Friday, 25 March 2011 10:26:21 UTC

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