- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:31:41 +0200
- To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
On 2015-08-10 07:11, Mike West wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de > <mailto: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? :) It's hard to predict. > 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). :) -> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/jsonbis/charter/>. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 10 August 2015 06:32:13 UTC