On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > >> or to adopt JSON (see >> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-jfv-latest.html >> >). >> >> >> Hrm. The response to this seemed mixed at the workshop (though I came >> into the presentation late). How much support is there in general? Would >> > > None yet. > Ok, asked differently: what's the risk that this header would end up being the only JSON-based header, while the rest of the world moved on to YAML or something equally silly? :) > this be the only JSON header? I'd prefer not to break new ground in >> header syntax... :) >> > > It is "new ground" everytime you use a syntax that doesn't already have a > parser :-) > Well, yes, but there's digging a new hole with a well-known shovel, and there's digging a new hole with a brand new thing that looks like a shovel but might have spiky bits all over it. For instance, the JSON definitions in RFC7159 don't completely overlap with the JSON definitions in ES6 ( http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/#sec-json-object). I don't really understand the distinctions, so I'm adding Alex (who has ranted to me about a possible third or fourth non-overlapping definition as well). :) -mike
Received on Monday, 10 August 2015 05:12:28 UTC